ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Pediatric Cancers: Is It Still a Stalemate?
Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioengineered cell therapies for pediatric solid tumors: unmet needs and a measurement-integrated approach.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2026Review
- Immunotherapy for pediatric solid tumors: overcoming biological barriers through rational multimodal combinations.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2026Review
- Immune evolution and therapeutic vulnerabilities in thyroid cancer: from inflammation to immune escape.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Alopecia in Children with Cancer: A Review from Pathophysiology to Management.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025Review
- Overcoming the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in pediatric CNS tumors: immunotherapy and nanomedicine-driven strategies.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Safety and clinical efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in pediatric hepatocellular carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The knowledge surrounding the application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of pediatric cancers is continuously expanding and evolving. These therapies work by enhancing the body's natural immune response against tumors, which may have been suppressed by certain pathways. The effectiveness of ICIs in treating adult cancers has been widely acknowledged. However, the results of early phase I/II clinical trials that exclusively targeted the use of ICIs for treating different pediatric cancers have been underwhelming. The response rates to ICIs have generally been modest, except for cases of pediatric classic Hodgkin lymphoma. There seems to be a notable disparity in the immunogenicity of childhood cancers compared to adult cancers, potentially accounting for this phenomenon. On average, childhood cancers tend to have significantly fewer neoantigens. In recent times, there has been a renewed sense of optimism regarding the potential benefits of ICI therapies for specific groups of children with cancer. In initial research, individuals diagnosed with pediatric hypermutated and SMARCB1-deficient cancers have shown remarkable positive outcomes when treated with ICI therapies. This is likely due to the underlying biological factors that promote the expression of neoantigens and inflammation within the tumor. Ongoing trials are diligently assessing the effectiveness of ICIs for pediatric cancer patients in these specific subsets. This review aimed to analyze the safety and effectiveness of ICIs in pediatric patients with different types of highly advanced malignancies.
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.