Pediatric cancers, particularly high-risk solid tumors, urgently need effective and specific therapies. Their outlook has not appreciably improved in decades. Immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors offer much promise, but most are only approved for use in adults. Though several hundred clinical trials have tested immune-based approaches in childhood cancers, few have been guided by biomarkers or clinical-grade assays developed to predict patient response and, ultimately, to help select those most likely to benefit. There is extensive evidence in adults to show that immune profiling has substantial predictive value, but few studies focus on childhood tumors, because of the relatively small disease population and restricted use of immune-based therapies. For instance, only one published study has retrospectively examined the immune profiles of pediatric brain tumors after immunotherapy. Furthermore, application and integration of advanced multiplex techniques has been extremely limited. Here, we review the current status of immune profiling of pediatric solid tumors, with emphasis on tumor types that represent enormous unmet clinical need, primarily in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Translating optimized and informative immune profiling into standard practice and access to personalized combination therapy will be critical if childhood cancers are to be treated effectively and affordably.
Rachael L. Terry, Deborah Meyran, David S. Ziegler, Michelle Haber, Paul G. Ekert, Joseph A. Trapani, Paul J. Neeson
Usage data is cumulative from January 2024 through January 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 785 | 272 |
120 | 89 | |
Figure | 120 | 5 |
Table | 105 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 39 | 1 |
Citation downloads | 45 | 0 |
Totals | 1,214 | 367 |
Total Views | 1,581 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.