Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40735344›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025

Therapeutic anti-cancer vaccines: a systematic review of prospective intervention trials for common hematological malignancies.

Darshi Shah, Veer Shah, Karan Shah, Prachi J Shah, Muatassem Alsadhan, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad, Muzaffar H Qazilbash, Rajshekhar Chakraborty, Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

10 authors.

Darshi ShahRenaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11790, USA.
Veer ShahIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Karan ShahThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Prachi J ShahRenaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11790, USA.
Muatassem AlsadhanDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Alyson HaslamDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Vinay PrasadDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Muzaffar H QazilbashDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy at the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Rajshekhar ChakrabortyMultiple Myeloma and Amyloidosis Program, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Ghulam Rehman MohyuddinDivision of Hematology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This review comprehensively assesses all prospective trials on anti-cancer vaccines for common hematological malignancies by analyzing trial designs, endpoints, and whether these endpoints are met across these trials. Methods: We included onco prospective clinical trials involving therapeutic anti-cancer vaccines for hematological malignancies published up to May 2025. We excluded retrospective cohort studies, case reports, non-research opinion publications, and studies not related to hematological malignancies. Information sources: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and ClinicalTrials.gov. All the included RCTs were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions, version 6.2 and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results were synthesized descriptively, using frequencies (%) and medians (interquartile range [IQR]). The study protocol utilized was recorded in the PROSPERO database (Registration ID. CRD42024504780). Findings: Out of 2856 studies screened, a total of 187 studies were included. The median sample size was 18 (IQR = 20), and 33/187 (18%) studies were randomized. Most utilized primary endpoints were translational and safety, of which the endpoint was met 65/81 (80%) and 51/74 (69%) of the time, respectively. In 35/187 (19%) of the total studies included, the primary endpoint was a clinical efficacy endpoint (PFS, OS, duration of remission, cancer response) of which, 11/35 (31%) of studies met their clinical primary endpoint. Of the 33 randomized studies, 24 measured a clinical endpoint as their primary endpoint. Besides BCG administration in AML, no vaccine trial met a clinical efficacy endpoint in a randomized trial. There was not a single instance in which a vaccine product demonstrated an improvement in overall survival. The risk of bias assessment for RCTs showed most studies at low or intermediate risk of bias. Interpretation: This systematic review of all therapeutic anti-cancer vaccine trials in common hematological malignancies shows that although vaccines generally demonstrate immunogenicity, they have mostly failed to show consistent anti-cancer activity. Limitations include a lack of quantitative synthesis due to heterogeneity of assessed interventions, small sample sizes in most studies, and a lack of clear endpoint description in some studies. Funding: None. PROSPERO Registration ID. CRD42024504780.

Indexed as

Cancer vaccinesHematological malignanciesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40735344
PMCPMC12305733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.