SynthesisOncology reviews2024
Efficacy and Safety of Vaccines After Conventional Treatments for Survival of Gliomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Oncology reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of glioma treatment strategies: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- First step results from a phase II study of a dendritic cell vaccine in glioblastoma patients (CombiG-vax).Frontiers in immunology · 2024Trial
- Vaccine-based cancer immunotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a time-to-event meta-analysis of phase II and III randomized controlled trials.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Immune interception in cancer: prioritizing vaccination in high-risk and premalignant settings.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malignant gliomas are known with poor prognosis and low rate of survival among brain tumors. Resection surgery is followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy in treatment of gliomas which is known as the conventional treatment. However, this treatment method results in low survival rate. Vaccination has been suggested as a type of immunotherapy to increase survival rate of glioma patients. Different types of vaccines have been developed that are mainly classified in two groups including peptide vaccines and cell-based vaccines. However, there are still conflicts about which type of vaccines is more efficient for malignant glioma treatment. Methods: Phase Ⅰ/Ⅱ clinical trials which compared the efficacy and safety of various vaccines with conventional treatments were searched in databases through November 2022. Overall survival (OS) rate, progression free survival (PFS), and OS duration were used for calculation of pooled risk ratio (RR). In addition, fatigue, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and flu-like syndrome were used for evaluating the safety of vaccines therapy in glioma patients. Results: A total of twelve articles were included in the present meta-analysis. Comparison of OS rate between vaccinated groups and control groups who underwent only conventional treatments showed a significant increase in OS rate in vaccinated patients (I Conclusion: Vaccination is a type of immunotherapy which shows promising efficacy in treatment of malignant glioma patients in terms of OS, PFS and duration of survival. In addition, AFTV, peptide, and dendritic cell-based vaccines are among the most efficient vaccines for gliomas. Personalized vaccines also showed considerable efficacy for glioma treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.