Evidence mapPaperPMID 39622986Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2025

Vaccines for cancer prevention: exploring opportunities and navigating challenges.

Michele Graciotti, Lana E Kandalaft

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Covalent tumor anchoring spatially orchestrates antitumor immunity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Current and future immunotherapies for NSCLC.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

2 authors.

Michele GraciottiCenter of Experimental Therapeutics, Department of Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lana E KandalaftLudwig Institute for Cancer Research, Lausanne Branch, Lausanne, Switzerland. lkandalaft@lcr.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improved understanding of cancer immunology has gradually brought increasing attention towards cancer-preventive vaccines as an important tool in the fight against cancer. The aim of this approach is to reduce cancer occurrence by inducing a specific immune response targeting tumours at an early stage before they can fully develop. The great advantage of preventive cancer vaccines lies in the potential to harness a less-compromised immune system in vaccine recipients before their immune responses become affected by the advanced status of the disease itself or by aggressive treatments such as chemotherapy. Successful implementation of immunoprevention against oncogenic viruses such as hepatitis B and papillomavirus has led to a dramatic decrease in virally induced cancers. Extending this approach to other cancers holds great promise but remains a major challenge. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of preclinical evidence supporting this approach, encouraging results from pioneering clinical studies as well as a discussion on the key aspects and open questions to address in order to design potent prophylactic cancer vaccines in the near future.

Indexed as

Cancer VaccinesNeoplasmsAnimalsHumansCancer Vaccines

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.