Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30902918›Full record

Trial reportThe oncologist2019

Anlotinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

Ai-Ping Zhou, Yuxian Bai, Yan Song, Hong Luo, Xiu-Bao Ren, Xiuwen Wang, Benkang Shi, Cheng Fu, Ying Cheng, Jiyan Liu and 7 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Targeting FGFR for cancer therapy.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2024
    Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

Ai-Ping ZhouNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yuxian BaiHarbin Medical University Affiliated Tumor Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
Yan SongNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hong LuoChongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Xiu-Bao RenTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, People's Republic of China.
Xiuwen WangQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, People's Republic of China.
Benkang ShiQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, People's Republic of China.
Cheng FuLiaoning Province Tumor Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Ying ChengJilin Cancer Hospital, Changchun, People's Republic of China.
Jiyan LiuWest China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Shukui QinThe 81st Hospital of Chinese PLA, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Jun LiGansu Province Cancer Hospital, Lanzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hanzhong LiPeking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xianzhong BaiGuangxi Medical University Affiliated Tumor Hospital, Nanning, Guangxi, People's Republic of China.
Dingwei YeCancer Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Jinwan WangNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jianhui MaNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China majianhui@csco.org.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting angiogenesis. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in comparison with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with mRCC from 13 clinical centers were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive anlotinib (

resultsThe median PFS was similar with anlotinib and sunitinib (17.5 vs. 16.6 months,

conclusionThe clinical efficacy of anlotinib was similar to that of sunitinib as the first-line treatment for mRCC, but with a more favorable safety profile. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of anlotinib for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Anlotinib, which was developed independently in China, is a new tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting multiple kinases involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. Results indicated that the efficacy of anlotinib is comparable to and the safety is better than that of sunitinib.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Renal CellDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansIndolesKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisProtein Kinase InhibitorsQuinolinesSunitinibanlotinibAntineoplastic AgentsIndolesProtein Kinase InhibitorsQuinolinesSunitinibAnlotinibMetastatic renal cell cancerPhase II clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID30902918
PMCPMC6693716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.