Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24823696›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2014

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial.

B Escudier, M D Michaelson, R J Motzer, T E Hutson, J I Clark, H Y Lim, E Porfiri, P Zalewski, G Kannourakis, M Staehler and 6 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

16 authors.

B EscudierInstitut Gustave Roussy/Medical Oncology Department, Villejuif 94805, France.
M D MichaelsonDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
R J MotzerDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
T E HutsonBaylor-Sammons/Texas Oncology Physician's Association, Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX 75246, USA.
J I ClarkDepartment of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.
H Y LimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center/Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 135-710, Korea.
E PorfiriQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2WB, UK.
P ZalewskiDurham Regional Cancer Centre, Oshawa, Ontario L1G 2B9, Canada.
G KannourakisFiona Elsey Cancer Research Institute and Ballarat Oncology and Haematology Services, Ballarat, Victoria 3355, Australia.
M StaehlerLudwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich 80539, Germany.
J TaraziPfizer Oncology, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
B RosbrookPfizer Oncology, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
L CisarPfizer Oncology, New York, NY 10017, USA.
S HariharanPfizer Oncology, New York, NY 10017, USA.
S KimPfizer Oncology, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
B I RiniDepartment of Solid Tumor Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines.

methodsIn post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated.

resultsResponse to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy.

conclusionsAXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsAxitinibCarcinoma, Renal CellCytokinesDisease-Free SurvivalHumansImidazolesIndazolesIndolesKidney NeoplasmsNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsProtein Kinase InhibitorsPyrrolesSorafenibSunitinibAntineoplastic AgentsAxitinibCytokinesImidazolesIndazolesIndolesNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsProtein Kinase InhibitorsPyrrolesSorafenibSunitinib

Identifiers

PMID24823696
PMCPMC4056058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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 OpenQuestion graph.