Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37033994›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2023

Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer.

Ankur Tiwari, Tamas Oravecz, Laura A Dillon, Antoine Italiano, Laurent Audoly, Wolf Hervé Fridman, Guy Travis Clifton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Macrophage Plasticity in Cancer Therapy: Function, Timing, and Tradeoffs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Targeting the Barriers Driving Immune Exclusion.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Beyond tumor biology: nursing interventions for psychological and immune health in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ankur TiwariDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States.
Tamas OraveczParthenon Therapeutics, Boston, MA, United States.
Laura A DillonParthenon Therapeutics, Boston, MA, United States.
Antoine ItalianoInstitut Bergonié, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Laurent AudolyParthenon Therapeutics, Boston, MA, United States.
Wolf Hervé FridmanCentre de Recherche des Cordeliers, National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris-Cité (USPC), Université de Paris, Equipe Inflammation, Paris, France.
Guy Travis CliftonParthenon Therapeutics, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The immune cell topography of solid tumors has been increasingly recognized as an important predictive factor for progression of disease and response to immunotherapy. The distribution pattern of immune cells in solid tumors is commonly classified into three categories - namely, " Materials and methods: In this review, we look at the ways immune exclusion has been defined in published literature and identify opportunities to develop consistent, quantifiable definitions, which in turn, will allow better determination of the underlying mechanisms that span cancer types and, ultimately, aid in the development of treatments to target these mechanisms. Results: The definitions of tumor immune phenotypes, especially immune exclusion, have largely been conceptual. The existing literature lacks in consistency when it comes to practically defining immune exclusion, and there is no consensus on a definition. Majority of the definitions use somewhat arbitrary cut-offs in an attempt to place each tumor into a distinct phenotypic category. Tumor heterogeneity is often not accounted for, which limits the practical application of a definition. Conclusions: We have identified two key issues in existing definitions of immune exclusion, establishing clinically relevant cut-offs within the spectrum of immune cell infiltration as well as tumor heterogeneity. We propose an approach to overcome these limitations, by reporting the degree of immune cell infiltration, tying cut-offs to clinically meaningful outcome measures, maximizing the number of regions of a tumor that are analyzed and reporting the degree of heterogeneity. This will allow for a consensus practical definition for operationalizing this categorization into clinical trial and signal-seeking endpoints.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTumor EscapeConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicHumansImmunotherapyTumor Microenvironmentcancer immunotherapyimmune cell topographyimmune exclusionimmune phenotypestumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID37033994
PMCPMC10073666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.