ReviewCancers2026
Combination Immunotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Current Clinical Evidence and Mechanistic Rationale for Overcoming a "Cold" Tumor.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) resists checkpoint blockades outside uncommon molecularly selected populations. This narrative review relates clinical combination studies to four overlapping resistance mechanisms: deficient antigenicity, presentation and priming; restricted effector-cell access; suppressive myeloid and regulatory-cell programs; and T-cell dysfunction. The grouping is an organizing heuristic, not a validated treatment-selection algorithm. A source audit through 5 September 2026 reconciled a nonexhaustive inventory of 85 supplied study/cohort entries and relevant additional reports; 84 inventory entries remain in the synthesis after the exclusion of 1 trial. Trial design, endpoint success, component attribution and pharmacodynamic evidence were assessed separately. PA.7 and CISPD3 did not improve their primary survival endpoints when checkpoint blockade was added to chemotherapy. Positive or apparently favorable findings require design-specific interpretation: NASCA changed several components, KG4/2015 pooled randomized and nonrandomized controls, and early vaccine signals have not established a routine benefit. POLAR did not meet its co-primary activity criteria; preliminary SWOG S2001 results did not demonstrate benefits from adding pembrolizumab to olaparib. dMMR/MSI-H remains an established tumor-agnostic selection biomarker, while exploratory PA.7 and tissue-state signatures require independent validation. Human immune changes, immunogenicity and target engagement should not be equated with clinical efficacy. Future trials should test defined component contributions, appropriate pharmacodynamic hypotheses and patient-reported outcomes, with sampling adapted to disease setting and feasibility.
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.