Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40265076›Full record

ReviewImmunotherapy advances2025

CTLA-4-two pathways to anti-tumour immunity?

Frank J Ward, Paul T Kennedy, Farah Al-Fatyan, Lekh N Dahal, Rasha Abu-Eid

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Immunotherapy advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Frank J WardMedical Sciences and Nutrition, Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7615-1855
Paul T KennedyDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Farah Al-FatyanMedical Sciences and Nutrition, Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Lekh N DahalDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Rasha Abu-EidMedical Sciences and Nutrition, Institute of Dentistry, School of Medicine, Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have revolutionized cancer therapy and improved patient outcomes in a range of cancers. ICIs enhance anti-tumour immunity by targeting the inhibitory checkpoint receptors CTLA-4, PD-1, PD-L1, and LAG-3. Despite their success, efficacy, and tolerance vary between patients, raising new challenges to improve these therapies. These could be addressed by the identification of robust biomarkers to predict patient outcome and a more complete understanding of how ICIs affect and are affected by the tumour microenvironment (TME). Despite being the first ICIs to be introduced, anti-CTLA-4 antibodies have underperformed compared with antibodies that target the PD-1/PDL-1 axis. This is due to the complexity regarding their precise mechanism of action, with two possible routes to efficacy identified. The first is a direct enhancement of effector T-cell responses through simple blockade of CTLA-4-'releasing the brakes', while the second requires prior elimination of regulatory T cells (T

Indexed as

CTLA-4immune checkpoint inhibitorregulatory T cells (Treg)soluble CTLA-4 (sCTLA-4)

Identifiers

PMID40265076
PMCPMC12012449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.