ReviewImmunotherapy advances2025
Cancer vaccine trial evaluations: immunobridging and potential immunological endpoints.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Decoding immune low-response states in sepsis: single-cell and 3D spatial transcriptomic insights into immunoparalysis.Frontiers in immunology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic cancer vaccines are an emerging class of immunotherapy, but challenges remain in effectively adapting approved vaccines to a growing number of adjuvants, combination therapies, and antigen-selection methods. Phase III clinical trials remain the gold standard in determining clinical benefit, but are slow and resource intensive, whilst radiological surrogates often fail to reliably predict clinical benefit. Using immunological surrogates of efficacy, deployed in 'immunobridging trials', could present a viable alternative, safely speeding up cancer vaccine development in a cost-effective manner. Whilst this approach has proven successful in infectious disease vaccines, identifying reliable immunological correlates of protection has proven difficult for cancer vaccines. Most clinical trials, which present the richest source of data to establish a correlate, rely on peripheral blood samples and standard immunoassays that are ill-equipped to capture the complexity of the vaccine-induced anti-tumour response. This review is the first to outline the importance and challenges of establishing immunological surrogates for cancer vaccines in the context of immunobridging trials, evaluating current immunoassay methods, and highlighting the need for techniques that can characterize tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and the suppressive tumour microenvironment across a range of patients. The authors propose adapting trial designs for surrogate discovery, including combining phase I/II trials and the use of multi-omics approaches. Successful immunological surrogate development could enable future immunobridging trials to accelerate the optimization of approved cancer vaccines without requiring new phase III trials, promoting faster clinical implementation of scientific advances and patient benefits.
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.