Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 650

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toxicities of Immunotherapy for the Practitioner

Open access
Weber, Jeffrey S., Yang, James C., Atkins, Michael B., Disis, Mary L.·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2014.60.0379
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The toxicities of immunotherapy for cancer are as diverse as the type of treatments that have been devised. These range from cytokine therapies that induce capillary leakage to vaccines associated with low levels of autoimmunity to cell therapies that can induce damaging cross-reactivity with normal tissue to checkpoint protein inhibitors that induce immune-related adverse events that are autoinflammatory in nature. The thread that ties these toxicities together is their mechanism-based immune nature and the T-cell–mediated adverse events seen. The basis for the majority of these adverse events is a hyperactivated T-cell response with reactivity directed against normal tissue, resulting in the generation of high levels of CD4 T-helper cell cytokines or increased migration of cytolytic CD8 T cells within normal tissues. The T-cell immune response is not tissue specific and may reflect a diffuse expansion of the T-cell repertoire that induces cross-reactivity with normal tissue, effectively breaking tolerance that is active with cytokines, vaccines, and checkpoint protein inhibitors and passive in the case of adoptive cell therapy. Cytokines seem to generate diffuse and nonspecific T-cell reactivity, whereas checkpoint protein inhibition, vaccines, and adoptive cell therapy seem to activate more specific T cells that interact directly with normal tissues, potentially causing specific organ damage. In this review, we summarize the toxicities that are unique to immunotherapies, emphasizing the need to familiarize the oncology practitioner with the spectrum of adverse events seen with newly approved and emerging modalities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2014.60.0379

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 650

Metadata

Authors
Weber, J. S., Yang, J. C., Atkins, M. B., & Disis, M. L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2015-06-20
Volume
33
Issue
18
Pages
2092-2099
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2014.60.0379
OpenAlex
W2116607009
Cited by
650
References
17
FWCI
32.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.