ArticleBioscience reports2017
A network meta-analysis of short-term efficacy of different single-drug targeted therapies in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.
Article in Bioscience reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of immunotherapy and targeted therapy treatment on renal cell carcinoma: A Bayesian network analysis.Oncology letters · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term efficacy of different single-drug targeted therapies in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We initially searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different single-drug targeted therapies in treating RCC. The meta-analysis combined the direct and indirect evidence to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and draw surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). A total of 14 eligible RCTs were ultimately selected. The partial response (PR) of Cabozantinib in the treatment of RCC was better than Sunitinib (OR = 2.7, 95%CI = 1.0-7.8), Everolimus (OR = 8.1, 95%CI = 3.1-25.0), and Temsirolimus (OR = 4.8, 95%CI = 1.0-31.0); the overall response rate (ORR) of Cabozantinib was better than Sorafenib, Sunitinib, Everolimus, and Temsirolimus (OR = 5.5, 95%CI = 1.1-27.0; OR = 2.6, 95%CI = 1.1-6.6; OR = 8.3, 95%CI = 3.5-20.0; OR = 5.7, 95%CI = 1.3-28.0 respectively). In addition, as for complete response (CR), PR, stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), ORR, and disease control rate (DCR), Cabozantinib had the best short-term efficacy among nine single-drug targeted therapies in the treatment of RCC (CR: 50.3%; PR: 93.6%; SD: 75.1%; PD: 68.0%; ORR: 95.5%; DCR: 73.2%); while Everolimus had the worst short-term efficacy (CR: 33.6%; PR: 22.3%; SD: 78.0%; PD: 35.9%; ORR: 22.9%; DCR: 19.9%). Our network meta-analysis indicated that Cabozantinib might have better short-term efficacy than other regimens in the treatment of RCC, while Everolimus might have poor short-term efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.