ReviewNature medicine2026
Clinical development of cancer vaccines.
Review in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized drug discovery from rare diseases to cancer.npj drug discovery · 2026Review
- Malaria and cancer: common features and interactions.Trends in parasitology · 2026Review
- Improving neoadjuvant and perioperative therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Review
- Review
- The promising cancer treatment approach in cancer immunotherapy: dendritic cell-based vaccines.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The limitations of current immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies highlight a need for improved strategies to expand tumor-reactive T cell repertoires in a way that is safe, selective and efficient. Cancer vaccines hold potential to achieve this goal, but the profound success of vaccines for infectious diseases has not yet translated to the cancer setting. Recently, however, encouraging preliminary results from phase 1 and 2 clinical trials have renewed enthusiasm and spurred the initiation of large-scale cancer vaccine trials. In this Review, we highlight insights from recent clinical trials, translational studies and preclinical models, which reveal critical factors for optimizing cancer vaccines. Key strategies include definition of improved proxies to estimate vaccine efficacy, selection of high-quality antigens-particularly neoantigens-using modular vaccine platforms with innate immunostimulatory capabilities, and a focus on early-stage cancer, as exemplified by (neo)adjuvant therapies. We discuss each of these in detail, outlining a roadmap for future cancer vaccine development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41814007What 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.