Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28886175›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Cabozantinib versus everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib and best supportive care: A network meta-analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in second line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Billy Amzal, Shuai Fu, Jie Meng, Johanna Lister, Helene Karcher

Open access · goldAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Kidney Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2022
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

5 authors.

Billy AmzalDecision Analytics and Value in Access, Analytica LA-SER, London, England.
Shuai FuDecision Analytics and Value in Access, Analytica LA-SER, London, England.
Jie MengDecision Analytics and Value in Access, Analytica LA-SER, London, England.
Johanna ListerDecision Analytics and Value in Access, Analytica LA-SER, London, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7166-4758
Helene KarcherDecision Analytics and Value in Access, Analytica LA-SER, London, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRelative effect of therapies indicated for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after failure of first line treatment is currently not known. The objective of the present study is to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of cabozantinib compared to everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib, and best supportive care (BSC) in aRCC patients who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. METHODOLOGY &

findingsSystematic literature search identified 5 studies for inclusion in this analysis. The assessment of the proportional hazard (PH) assumption between the survival curves for different treatment arms in the identified studies showed that survival curves in two of the studies did not fulfil the PH assumption, making comparisons of constant hazard ratios (HRs) inappropriate. Consequently, a parametric survival network meta-analysis model was implemented with five families of functions being jointly fitted in a Bayesian framework to PFS, then OS, data on all treatments. The comparison relied on data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves of published studies, except for cabozantinib and its comparator everolimus where patient level data were available. This analysis applied a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis model to compare PFS and OS of cabozantinib versus its comparators. The log-normal fixed-effects model displayed the best fit of data for both PFS and OS, and showed that patients on cabozantinib had a higher probability of longer PFS and OS than patients exposed to comparators. The survival advantage of cabozantinib increased over time for OS. For PFS the survival advantage reached its maximum at the end of the first year's treatment and then decreased over time to zero.

conclusionWith all five families of distributions, cabozantinib was superior to all its comparators with a higher probability of longer PFS and OS during the analyzed 3 years, except with the Gompertz model, where nivolumab was preferred after 24 months.

Indexed as

AnilidesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Renal CellEverolimusHumansKidney NeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingNiacinamideNivolumabPhenylurea CompoundsPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsProtein Kinase InhibitorsPyridinesRetreatmentAnilidesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntineoplastic AgentscabozantinibEverolimusNiacinamideNivolumabPhenylurea CompoundsProtein Kinase InhibitorsPyridinesSorafenib

Identifiers

PMID28886175
PMCPMC5590935
OpenAlexW2752568644

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.