ReviewFrontiers in immunology2025
Prediction, prevention, and precision treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor neurological toxicity using autoantibodies, cytokines, and microbiota.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Journey: From Early Promise to Lasting Impact.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2026Review
- Immune-Mediated Colitis Induced by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Pathophysiology, Clinical Management, and the Emerging Role of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Neurotoxicity of Immunotherapy: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Related Encephalitis vs. Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome.World journal of oncology · 2026Review
- Systemic therapy for advanced thymic epithelial tumors: a narrative review of current evidence and perspectives.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-enabled multi-omics biomarkers for immune checkpoint blockade: mechanisms, predictive modeling, and clinical translation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Neurotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective pharmacovigilance study using FAERS database.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Neurological immune-related adverse events after ICI treatment: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Serum TNF -α, IL-10 and IL-2 Trajectories and Outcomes in NSCLC and Melanoma Under Anti-PD-1 Therapy: Longitudinal Real-World Evidence from a Single Center.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- Immune Modulatory Effects of PD-1/PD-L1 in Myasthenia Gravis: Insights From Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell Analysis.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025Article
- Baseline neuronal antibodies in patients with small cell lung cancer are not necessarily associated with post-immune checkpoint inhibitors neurotoxicities.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Myasthenia gravis complicated with autoimmune encephalitis: a review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized oncology, significantly improving survival across multiple cancer types. ICIs, such as anti-PD-1 (e.g. nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-PD-L1 (e.g. atezolizumab, avelumab), and anti-CTLA-4 (e.g. ipilimumab), enhance T cell-mediated anti-tumor responses but can also trigger immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurological irAEs (n-irAEs), affecting 1-3% of patients, predominantly involve the peripheral nervous system; less commonly, n-irAEs can present as central nervous system disorders. Although irAEs suggest a possible correlation with treatment efficacy, their mechanisms remain unclear, with hypotheses ranging from antigen mimicry to cytokine dysregulation and microbiome alterations. Identifying patients at risk for n-irAEs and predicting their outcome through biomarkers would be highly desirable. For example, patients with high-risk onconeural antibodies (such as anti-Hu or Ma2), and elevated neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels often respond poorly to irAE treatment. However, interpreting neuronal antibody tests in the diagnosis of n-irAEs requires caution: positive results must align with the clinical context, as some cancer patients (e.g., SCLC) may have asymptomatic low antibody levels, and false positive results are common without tissue-based confirmation. Also, the use of biomarkers (e.g. IL-6) may lead to more targeted treatments of irAEs, minimizing adverse effects without compromising the anti-tumor efficacy of ICIs. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the latest findings on n-irAEs associated with ICIs, with a focus on their prediction, prevention, as well as precision treatment using autoantibodies, cytokines, and microbiota. The most interesting data concern neuronal antibodies, which we explore in their pathogenic roles and as biomarkers of neurotoxicity. Most of the available data on cytokines, both regarding their role as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers and their role in supporting therapeutic decisions for toxicities, refer to non-neurological toxicities. However, in our review, we mention the potential role of CXCL10 and CXCL13 as biomarkers of n-irAEs and describe the current evidence, as well as the need for further studies, on the use of cytokines in guiding selection of second-line therapies for n-irAEs. Finally, no specific microbiome-related microbial signature has been proven to be linked to n-irAEs specifically, leading to the need of more future research on the topic.
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.