SynthesisPloS one2019
Indirect treatment comparisons including network meta-analysis: Lenvatinib plus everolimus for the second-line treatment of advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the absence of clinical trials providing direct efficacy results, this study compares different methods of indirect treatment comparison (ITC), and their respective impacts on efficacy estimates for lenvatinib (LEN) plus everolimus (EVE) combination therapy compared to other second-line treatments for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (a/mRCC).
methodsUsing EVE alone as the common comparator, the Bucher method for ITC compared LEN + EVE with cabozantinib (CAB), nivolumab (NIV), placebo (PBO) and axitinib (AXI). Hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) estimated the impact of applying three versions of the LEN+EVE trial data in separate ITCs. Last, to overcome exchangeability bias and potential violations to the proportional hazards assumption, a network meta-analysis using fractional polynomials was performed.
resultsBucher ITCs demonstrated LEN + EVE superiority over EVE for PFS, indirect superiority to NIV, AXI, and PBO, and no difference to CAB. For OS, LEN + EVE was superior to EVE and indirectly superior to PBO, applying original HOPE 205 data. Using European Medicines Agency data, LEN + EVE was directly superior to EVE for OS. Fractional polynomial HRs for PFS and OS substantially overlapped with Bucher estimates, demonstrating LEN+EVE superiority over EVE, alone, NIV, and CAB. However, there were no statistically significant results as the credible intervals for HR crossed 1.0.
conclusionsComparing three Bucher ITCs, LEN + EVE demonstrated superior PFS when indirectly compared to NIV, AXI, and PBO, and mixed results for OS. While fractional polynomial modelling for PFS and OS failed to find statistically significant differences in LEN + EVE efficacy, the overall HR trends were comparable.
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.