ReviewInternational immunopharmacology2023
Highlights into historical and current immune interventions for cancer.
Review in International immunopharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolic Reprogramming in Cancer Stem Cells.Cancer treatment and research · 2026Review
- The Evolving Field of Tumor Immunopharmacology.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Decoding impact of human papillomavirus in gynecological oncology: a narrative review.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2025Article
- Mechanistic insights into liver-fluke-induced bile-duct cancer.Trends in parasitology · 2024Review
- Intracellular Osteopontin Promotes the Release of TNFα by Mast Cells to Restrain Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer.Cancer immunology research · 2024Article
- A combined radio-immunotherapy regimen eradicates late-stage tumors in mice.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Organoids: new frontiers in tumor immune microenvironment research.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Challenges in Permeability Assessment for Oral Drug Product Development.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Immunotherapy is an additional pillar when combined with traditional standards of care such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery for cancer patients. It has revolutionized cancer treatment and rejuvenated the field of tumor immunology. Several types of immunotherapies, including adoptive cellular therapy (ACT) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), can induce durable clinical responses. However, their efficacies vary, and only subsets of cancer patients benefit from their use. In this review, we address three goals: to provide insight into the history of these approaches, broaden our understanding of immune interventions, and discuss current and future approaches. We highlight how cancer immunotherapy has evolved and discuss how personalization of immune intervention may address present limitations. Cancer immunotherapy is considered a recent medical achievement and in 2013 was selected as the "Breakthrough of the Year" by Science. While the breadth of immunotherapeutics has been rapidly expanding, to include the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, immunotherapy dates back over 3000 years. The expansive history of immunotherapy, and related observations, have resulted in several approved immune therapeutics beyond the recent emphasis on CAR-T and ICI therapies. In addition to other classical forms of immune intervention, including human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis B, and the Mycobacterium bovis Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) tuberculosis vaccines, immunotherapies have had a broad and durable impact on cancer therapy and prevention. One classic example of immunotherapy was identified in 1976 with the use of intravesical administration of BCG in patients with bladder cancer; resulting in a 70 % eradication rate and is now standard of care. However, a greater impact from the use of immunotherapy is documented by the prevention of HPV infections that are responsible for 98 % of cervical cancer cases. In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 341,831 women died from cervical cancer [1]. However, administration of a single dose of a bivalent HPV vaccine was shown to be 97.5 % effective in preventing HPV infections. These vaccines not only prevent cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, but also oropharyngeal, anal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile squamous cell carcinomas. The breadth, response and durability of these vaccines can be contrasted with CAR-T-cell therapies, which have significant barriers to their widespread use including logistics, manufacturing limitations, toxicity concerns, financial burden and lasting remissions observed in only 30 to 40 % of responding patients. Another, recent immunotherapy focus are ICIs. ICIs are a class of antibodies that can increase the immune responses against cancer cells in patients. However, ICIs are only effective against tumors with a high mutational burden and are associated with a broad spectrum of toxicities requiring interruption of administration and/or administration corticosteroids; both of which limit immune therapy. In summary, immune therapeutics have a broad impact worldwide, utilizing numerous mechanisms of action and when considered in their totality are more effective against a broader range of tumors than initially considered. These new cancer interventions have tremendous potential notability when multiple mechanisms of immune intervention are combined as well as with standard of care modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.