Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28056874›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2017

Sorafenib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment agents in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the largest multicenter retrospective analysis of survival and prognostic factors.

Hai-Liang Zhang, Xi-Nan Sheng, Xue-Song Li, Hong-Kai Wang, Zhi-Hong Chi, Zhi-Song He, Ding-Wei Ye, Jun Guo

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Hai-Liang ZhangDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Xi-Nan ShengKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Renal Cancer and Melanoma, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xue-Song LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, National Urological Cancer Center, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hong-Kai WangDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Zhi-Hong ChiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Renal Cancer and Melanoma, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zhi-Song HeDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, National Urological Cancer Center, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Ding-Wei YeDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. dwyeli@163.com.
Jun GuoKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Renal Cancer and Melanoma, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China. guoj307@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the efficacy of sorafenib and sunitinib with regard to overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

methodsA multicenter, retrospective study was performed to elucidate the relationship between clinical variables and prognosis comparing sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line treatment agents in Chinese patients with mRCC. Between September 2006 and December 2014, 845 patients received either sorafenib (400 mg bid; n = 483) or sunitinib (50 mg q.d; n = 362). The primary end point was OS and PFS.

resultsThe percentage of patients with low and moderate risk according to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) score was significantly higher in sunitinib group, and that with high risk was significantly higher in sorafenib group (15.1 vs. 5.2%; p < 0.001). Median OS was similar in sorafenib and sunitinib group (24 vs. 24 months; p = 0.298). Sorafenib group exhibited higher mPFS compared to sunitinib group (11.1 vs. 10.0 months; p = 0.028). Treatment (sorafenib vs sunitinib), pathology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, MSKCC scores, Heng's criteria of risk, and number of metastases were identified as significant predictors for OS and along with liver metastasis for PFS. Clinical outcomes in terms of mOS was significantly better with sorafenib in patients ≥65 years of age (p = .041), ECOG 0 (p = 0.0001), and median MSKCC risk score (p = 0.008).

conclusionsSorafenib and sunitinib are both effective in treating mRCC. However, sorafenib might be more effective in elderly patients (≥65 years) and in patients with an ECOG status of 0, classified under MSKCC moderate risk.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsAsian PeopleCarcinoma, Renal CellDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansIndolesKaplan-Meier EstimateKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsAntineoplastic AgentsIndolesNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsPyrrolesSorafenibSunitinibMetastatic renal cell carcinomaPrognosisSorafenibSunitinibSurvival

Identifiers

PMID28056874
PMCPMC5217658

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.