Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38639919›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2024

Integrating Multisector Molecular Characterization into Personalized Peptide Vaccine Design for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma.

Tanner M Johanns, Elizabeth A R Garfinkle, Katherine E Miller, Alexandra J Livingstone, Kaleigh F Roberts, Lakshmi P Rao Venkata, Joshua L Dowling, Michael R Chicoine, Ralph G Dacey, Gregory J Zipfel and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Personalizing DNA Cancer Vaccines.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

13 authors.

Tanner M Johanns *Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0003-1094-1528
Elizabeth A R Garfinkle *The Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0002-7292-4347
Katherine E MillerThe Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0003-1054-0476
Alexandra J LivingstoneDivision of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0001-5471-4576
Kaleigh F RobertsDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0001-6483-9153
Lakshmi P Rao VenkataThe Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0009-0006-0110-6845
Joshua L DowlingThe Brain Tumor Center at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-0340-7493
Michael R ChicoineDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Missouri in Columbia, Columbia, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-0689-8603
Ralph G DaceyDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-9181-6413
Gregory J ZipfelThe Brain Tumor Center at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0003-2737-9084
Albert H KimThe Brain Tumor Center at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-1751-8493
Elaine R MardisThe Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0002-5892-1553
Gavin P DunnDepartment of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0001-9302-4834

Funding

Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Daniel G. Stover · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
Washington University Paul Calabresi K12 Career Development Award for Clinical OncologyK12CA167540 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI John F. Dipersio, Ramaswamy Govindan · 2012 to 2026
$11.7M
Targeting Neoantigens in GlioblastomaR01NS112712 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DUNN, GAVIN PETER · 2019 to 2024
$2.3M
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) R01NS112712National Institutes of Health (NIH) K12CA167540Nationwide Foundation Innovation FundNCI NIH HHS K12 CA167540NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS112712The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center Investment ProgramThe Foundation for Barnes-Jewish HospitalThe Knight and Christopher Davidson Family FundThe Schnuck Family Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOutcomes for patients with glioblastoma (GBM) remain poor despite multimodality treatment with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. There are few immunotherapy options due to the lack of tumor immunogenicity. Several clinical trials have reported promising results with cancer vaccines. To date, studies have used data from a single tumor site to identify targetable antigens, but this approach limits the antigen pool and is antithetical to the heterogeneity of GBM. We have implemented multisector sequencing to increase the pool of neoantigens across the GBM genomic landscape that can be incorporated into personalized peptide vaccines called NeoVax. PATIENTS AND

methodsIn this study, we report the findings of four patients enrolled onto the NeoVax clinical trial (NCT0342209).

resultsImmune reactivity to NeoVax neoantigens was assessed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells pre- and post-NeoVax for patients 1 to 3 using IFNγ-ELISPOT assay. A statistically significant increase in IFNγ producing T cells at the post-NeoVax time point for several neoantigens was observed. Furthermore, a post-NeoVax tumor biopsy was obtained from patient 3 and, upon evaluation, revealed evidence of infiltrating, clonally expanded T cells.

conclusionsCollectively, our findings suggest that NeoVax stimulated the expansion of neoantigen-specific effector T cells and provide encouraging results to aid in the development of future neoantigen vaccine-based clinical trials in patients with GBM. Herein, we demonstrate the feasibility of incorporating multisector sampling in cancer vaccine design and provide information on the clinical applicability of clonality, distribution, and immunogenicity of the neoantigen landscape in patients with GBM.

Indexed as

Antigens, NeoplasmCancer VaccinesGlioblastomaPrecision MedicineVaccines, SubunitAdultAgedBrain NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImmunotherapyMaleMiddle AgedProtein Subunit VaccinesAntigens, NeoplasmCancer VaccinesProtein Subunit VaccinesVaccines, Subunit

Identifiers

PMID38639919
PMCPMC11215407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.