The Prioritization of Cancer Antigens: A National Cancer Institute Pilot Project for the Acceleration of Translational Research
By M. Cheever, James P. Allison, A. Ferris, O. Finn, Benjamin M Hastings, T. Hecht, I. Mellman, S. Prindiville, R. M. Steinman, J. Viner and 2 more. Clinical Cancer Research, 2009
1,349 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The purpose of the National Cancer Institute pilot project to prioritize cancer antigens was to develop a well-vetted, priority-ranked list of cancer vaccine target antigens based on predefined and preweighted objective criteria. An additional aim was for the National Cancer Institute to test a new approach for prioritizing translational research opportunities based on an analytic hierarchy process for dealing with complex decisions. Antigen prioritization involved developing a list of “ideal” cancer antigen criteria/characteristics, assigning relative weights to those criteria using pairwise comparisons, selecting 75 representative antigens for comparison and ranking, assembling information on the predefined criteria for the selected antigens, and ranking the antigens based on the predefined, preweighted criteria. Using the pairwise approach, the result of criteria weighting, in descending order, was as follows: (a) therapeutic function, (b) immunogenicity, (c) role of the antigen in oncogenicity, (d) specificity, (e) expression level and percent of antigen-positive cells, (f) stem cell expression, (g) number of patients with antigen-positive cancers, (h) number of antigenic epitopes, and (i) cellular location of antigen expression. None of the 75 antigens had all of the characteristics of the ideal cancer antigen. However, 46 were immunogenic in clinical trials and 20 of them had suggestive clinical efficacy in the “therapeutic function” category. These findings reflect the current status of the cancer vaccine field, highlight the possibility that additional organized efforts and funding would accelerate the development of therapeutically effective cancer vaccines, and accentuate the need for prioritization. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(17):5323–37)
Subfields: Immunology, Molecular Biology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce2da4b941a41be41a16853f8b60c07b752f5c16
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Immunology
In Molecular Biology
In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Citations in the corpus
- MUC1: a multifaceted oncoprotein with a key role in cancer progression. (2014, background): “Recently, a study conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Translational Research Working Group ranked MUC1 as the second best potential target out of 75 tumor-associated antigens for the development of cancer vaccine [91].”
- Cardiovascular toxicity and titin cross-reactivity of affinity-enhanced T cells in myeloma and melanoma. (2013, background): “MAGE-A3 has been prioritized by the National Cancer Institute as the top-rated cancertestis antigen immunotherapy target because of its frequent expression in many types of cancer and lack of expression on adult cells that express HLA class I antigens.(15,16) Heretofore, infusions with engineered T ”
- The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis (2017, background): “A number of applications have been proposed to show the usefulness of AHP for decision-making and its wide applicability in several sectors, not necessarily related to those in which it originated, such as the health sector (Cheever et al. 2009; Liberatore 1987; Liberatore et al. 2003) and education”
- Immuno-oncology: understanding the function and dysfunction of the immune system in cancer. (2012, background): “Recently, these studies were critically reviewed and a list of tumour antigens with the largest body of available data compiled [9].”