Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38544385›Full record

SynthesisHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2024

Utility of cell-based vaccines as cancer therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ankur Tiwari, Karl Alcover, Elizabeth Carpenter, Katryna Thomas, Julia Krum, Alexander Nissen, Spencer Van Decar, Todd Smolinsky, Franklin Valdera, Timothy Vreeland and 6 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Immunotherapy for Solid Tumours: Current Clinical Landscape and Future Directions.European surgical research. Europaische chirurgische Forschung. Recherches chirurgicales europeennes · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

16 authors.

Ankur TiwariDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Karl AlcoverDepartment of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Elizabeth CarpenterDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Katryna ThomasDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Julia KrumDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Alexander NissenDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Spencer Van DecarDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Todd SmolinskyDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Franklin ValderaDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Timothy VreelandDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Markus LacherBriaCell Therapeutics Corp, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Giuseppe Del PrioreBriaCell Therapeutics Corp, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
William WilliamsBriaCell Therapeutics Corp, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander StojadinovicLumaBridge, San Antonio, TX, USA.
George PeoplesLumaBridge, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Guy CliftonDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-based therapeutic cancer vaccines use autologous patient-derived tumor cells, allogeneic cancer cell lines or autologous antigen presenting cells to mimic the natural immune process and stimulate an adaptive immune response against tumor antigens. The primary objective of this study is to perform a systematic literature review with an embedded meta-analysis of all published Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of cell-based cancer vaccines in human subjects. The secondary objective of this study is to review trials demonstrating biological activity of cell-based cancer vaccines that could uncover additional hypotheses, which could be used in the design of future studies. We performed the systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The final review included 36 studies - 16 single-arm studies, and 20 controlled trials. Our systematic review of the existing literature revealed largely negative trials and our meta-analysis did not show evidence of clinical benefit from cell-based cancer-vaccines. However, as we looked beyond the stringent inclusion criteria of our systematic review, we identified significant examples of biological activity of cell-based cancer vaccines that are worth highlighting. In conclusion, the existing literature on cell-based cancer vaccines is highly variable in terms of cancer type, vaccine therapies and the clinical setting with no overall statistically significant clinical benefit, but there are individual successes that represent the promise of this approach. As cell-based vaccine technology continues to evolve, future studies can perhaps fulfill the potential that this exciting field of anti-cancer therapy holds.

Indexed as

Cancer VaccinesNeoplasmsAdaptive ImmunityAntigens, NeoplasmHumansAntigens, NeoplasmCancer Vaccinescancer immunotherapyCancer vaccinescell-based cancer vaccinesdendritic cell vaccinesmeta-analysissystematic reviewtumor cell vaccines

Identifiers

PMID38544385
PMCPMC10984131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.