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

IF 10 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2025-07-22 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103378
Darshi Shah, Veer Shah, Karan Shah, Prachi J Shah, Muatassem Alsadhan, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad, Muzaffar H Qazilbash, Rajshekhar Chakraborty, Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin
{"title":"Therapeutic anti-cancer vaccines: a systematic review of prospective intervention trials for common hematological malignancies.","authors":"Darshi Shah, Veer Shah, Karan Shah, Prachi J Shah, Muatassem Alsadhan, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad, Muzaffar H Qazilbash, Rajshekhar Chakraborty, Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None. PROSPERO Registration ID. CRD42024504780.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"86 ","pages":"103378"},"PeriodicalIF":10.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12305733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103378","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

治疗性抗癌疫苗:对常见血液系统恶性肿瘤前瞻性干预试验的系统回顾。
背景:本综述通过分析试验设计、终点以及这些试验是否满足这些终点,全面评估了所有针对常见血液系统恶性肿瘤的抗癌疫苗前瞻性试验。方法:我们纳入了截至2025年5月发表的涉及血液系统恶性肿瘤治疗性抗癌疫苗的肿瘤前瞻性临床试验。我们排除了回顾性队列研究、病例报告、非研究意见出版物和与血液系统恶性肿瘤无关的研究。信息来源:Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov。所有纳入的随机对照试验均使用Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册6.2版和Cochrane偏倚风险工具进行偏倚评估。使用频率(%)和中位数(四分位数间距[IQR])对结果进行描述性合成。使用的研究方案被记录在PROSPERO数据库中(注册ID。CRD42024504780)。结果:在筛选的2856项研究中,共纳入187项研究。中位样本量为18 (IQR = 20),其中33/187(18%)研究是随机的。大多数使用的主要终点是翻译和安全性,其中终点分别达到65/81(80%)和51/74(69%)。在纳入的全部研究中,35/187(19%)的主要终点是临床疗效终点(PFS、OS、缓解持续时间、癌症反应),其中11/35(31%)的研究达到了临床主要终点。在33项随机研究中,24项以临床终点作为主要终点。除了卡介苗治疗急性髓系白血病外,在随机试验中没有疫苗试验达到临床疗效终点。没有一个实例表明疫苗产品提高了总生存率。随机对照试验的偏倚风险评估显示,大多数研究的偏倚风险为低或中等。解释:本系统回顾了所有针对常见血液系统恶性肿瘤的治疗性抗癌疫苗试验,结果表明,尽管疫苗通常表现出免疫原性,但它们大多未能表现出一致的抗癌活性。局限性包括由于评估的干预措施的异质性而缺乏定量综合,大多数研究的样本量小,以及一些研究缺乏明确的终点描述。资金:没有。普洛斯彼罗注册ID。CRD42024504780。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信