ReviewVaccines2025
Manufacturing and Financial Evaluation of Peptide-Based Neoantigen Cancer Vaccines for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in the United Kingdom: Opportunities and Challenges.
Review in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical translation and landscape of stimuli-responsive nanomedicines and microscale therapeutics.Chemical Society reviews · 2026Review
- Neoantigen-Driven Immunotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Emerging Strategies and Clinical Potential.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines in Colorectal Cancer: Platforms, Mechanisms, and Combinations.Cancers · 2025Article
- Vaccines and Vaccination: Feature Papers.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Novel strategies for nanovaccine application in breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
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
Abstract
This review evaluates the financial burden of current treatments for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and projects potential financial scenarios to assess the feasibility of introducing a peptide-based neoantigen cancer vaccine (NCV) targeting the disease, using the UK as a healthcare system model. TNBC, the most aggressive breast cancer subtype, is associated with poor prognosis, worsened by the lack of personalised treatment options. Neoantigen cancer vaccine therapies present a personalised alternative with the potential to enhance T-cell responses independently of genetic factors, unlike approved immunotherapies for TNBC. Through a systematic literature review, the underlying science and manufacturing processes of NCVs are explored, the direct medical costs of existing TNBC treatments are enumerated, and two contrasting pricing scenarios for NCV clinical adoption are evaluated. The findings indicate that limited immunogenicity is the main scientific barrier to NCV clinical advancement, alongside production inefficiencies. Financial analysis shows that the UK spends approximately GBP 230 million annually on TNBC treatments, ranging from GBP 2200 to GBP 54,000 per patient. A best-case pricing model involving government-sponsored NCV therapy appears financially viable, while a worst-case, privately funded model exceeds the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) cost thresholds. This study concludes that while NCVs show potential clinical benefits for TNBC, uncertainties about their standalone efficacy make their widespread adoption in the UK unlikely without further clinical research.
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.