Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25830512›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

A systematic review of the efficacy and safety experience reported for sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the post-approval setting.

Mayer N Fishman, Jin Tomshine, William J Fulp, Pamela K Foreman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Study on the Role and Mechanism of LncRNA ZFasL in Renal Carcinoma.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Combinatorial Therapies in Melanoma: MAPK Inhibitors and Beyond.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2018
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

4 authors.

Mayer N FishmanH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, United States of America.
Jin TomshineBlue Ocean Pharma LLC, Annandale, New Jersey, United States of America.
William J FulpH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, United States of America.
Pamela K ForemanBlue Ocean Pharma LLC, Annandale, New Jersey, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSorafenib was FDA approved in 2005 for treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial, TARGET (Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial). Since that time, numerous clinical studies have been undertaken that substantially broaden our knowledge of the use of sorafenib for this indication.

methodsWe systematically reviewed PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov for prospective clinical studies using single agent sorafenib in RCC and published since 2005. Primary endpoints of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews #CRD42014010765.

resultsWe identified 30 studies in which 2182 patients were treated with sorafenib, including 1575 patients who participated in randomized controlled phase 3 trials. In these trials, sorafenib was administered as first-, second- or third-line treatment. Heterogeneity among trial designs and reporting of data precluded statistical comparisons among trials or with TARGET. The PFS appeared shorter in second- vs. first-line treatment, consistent with the more advanced tumor status in the second-line setting. In some trials, incidences of grade 3/4 hypertension or hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) were more than double that seen in TARGET (4% and 6%, respectively). These variances may be attributable to increased recognition of HFSR, or potentially differences in dose adjustments, that could be consequences of increased familiarity with sorafenib usage. Several small studies enrolled exclusively Asian patients. These studies reported notably longer PFS than was observed in TARGET. However, no obvious corresponding differences in disease control rate and overall survival were seen.

conclusionsCollectively, more recent experiences using sorafenib in RCC are consistent with results reported for TARGET with no marked changes of response endpoints or new safety signals observed.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalSafetyCarcinoma, Renal CellClinical Trials as TopicHumansKidney NeoplasmsNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsSorafenibNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsSorafenib

Identifiers

PMID25830512
PMCPMC4382117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.