Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26448178›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2015

A randomised, phase II study of nintedanib or sunitinib in previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell cancer: 3-year results.

T Eisen, A-B Loembé, Y Shparyk, N MacLeod, R J Jones, M Mazurkiewicz, G Temple, H Dressler, I Bondarenko

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors.

T EisenDepartment of Oncology, Cambridge University Health Partners, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
A-B LoembéMedical Department, Boehringer Ingelheim B.V., Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Y ShparykDepartment of Chemotherapy, Lviv State Oncology Regional Treatment and Diagnostic Centre, Lviv, Ukraine.
N MacLeodCancer Research UK Clinical Research Unit, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
R J JonesCancer Research UK Clinical Research Unit, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
M MazurkiewiczCentrum Onkologii Ziemi Lubelskiej, Lublin, Poland.
G TempleMedical Department, Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd., Bracknell, UK.
H DresslerGlobal Pharmacovigilance, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany.
I BondarenkoOncology Department, Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Clinical Hospital #4, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis exploratory study evaluated the safety/efficacy of nintedanib or sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

methodsNinety-six patients were randomised (2:1) to either nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or sunitinib (50 mg kg(-1) once daily (4 weeks on treatment; 2 weeks off)). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 9 months. P-values reported are descriptive only; the study was not powered for such comparisons.

resultsProgression-free survival at 9 months was comparable between nintedanib and sunitinib (43.1% vs 45.2%, respectively; P=0.85). Median PFS was 8.4 months in each group (hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.80; P=0.64). Median overall survival was 20.4 and 21.2 months for nintedanib and sunitinib, respectively (HR, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54-1.56; P=0.76). Overall incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was comparable (90.6% vs 93.8%); AEs grade ⩾ 3 were lower with nintedanib than sunitinib (48.4% vs 59.4%). Nintedanib was associated with lower incidences of some AEs typical of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, cardiac disorders and haematological abnormalities.

conclusionsIn patients with advanced RCC, nintedanib has promising efficacy and similar tolerability to sunitinib, and a manageable safety profile with fewer TKI-associated AEs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Renal CellDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansIndolesKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedProtein Kinase InhibitorsProtein-Tyrosine KinasesPyrrolesAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntineoplastic AgentsIndolesnintedanibProtein Kinase InhibitorsProtein-Tyrosine KinasesPyrrolesSunitinib

Identifiers

PMID26448178
PMCPMC4647871

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.