Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31272939›Full record

Trial reportEuropean urology oncology2020

Temsirolimus versus Pazopanib (TemPa) in Patients with Advanced Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Poor-risk Features: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

Nizar M Tannir, Pavlos Msaouel, Jeremy A Ross, Catherine E Devine, Anuradha Chandramohan, Graciela M Nogueras Gonzalez, Xuemei Wang, Jennifer Wang, Paul G Corn, Zita D Lim and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European urology oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Novel Effects of Statins on Cancer via Autophagy.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nizar M TannirDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: ntannir@mdanderson.org.
Pavlos MsaouelDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jeremy A RossDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Catherine E DevineDepartment of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Anuradha ChandramohanDepartment of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Graciela M Nogueras GonzalezDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Xuemei WangDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jennifer WangDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Paul G CornDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Zita D LimDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Lisa PruittDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jose A KaramDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Christopher G WoodDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Amado J ZuritaDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Convalescent Plasma to Limit Coronavirus Associated ComplicationsUL1TR003167 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI KARP, DANIEL D, MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2019 to 2023
$45.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003167NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTemsirolimus has level 1 evidence for initial treatment of poor-risk patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but its efficacy has not been directly compared with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor [VEGFR TKi]) in this setting.

objectiveTo evaluate temsirolimus versus pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC, predominant clear-cell features, and clinical characteristics of a poor prognosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA randomized (1:1) phase II trial in 69 treatment-naïve mRCC patients and with three or more predictors of short survival for temsirolimus was conducted during 2012-2017 in a single academic cancer center. Crossover to the alternative treatment upon discontinuation of the first-line agent was permitted.

interventionMechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor temsirolimus and VEGFR TKi pazopanib. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Radiographic response was assessed by blinded radiologists. Efficacy outcomes were adjusted by prior nephrectomy status, prior interleukin-2 treatment, and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Thirty-five patients received temsirolimus and 34 received pazopanib upfront; 72% overall had poor risk by IMDC. Median PFS in the first line was 2.7mo with temsirolimus and 5.2mo with pazopanib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-2.22; p=0.210). Median OS was 7.1mo with temsirolimus and 11.9mo with pazopanib (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.70-1.93; p=0.558), and ORRs were 5.9% and 21.2%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 0.9-29.3; p=0.062). PRO measures favored pazopanib. Five patients discontinued first-line therapy due to adverse events.

conclusionsTemsirolimus and pazopanib had modest activity in patients with poor-risk clear-cell mRCC, and therefore their use should be discouraged in this setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated outcomes of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients presenting with aggressive features when treated with temsirolimus or pazopanib as first-line therapy. Survival was <1yr for most, suggesting that more efficacious alternative treatments should be favored for these patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Renal CellFemaleHumansIndazolesKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisPyrimidinesRisk AssessmentSingle-Blind MethodSirolimusIndazolespazopanibPyrimidinesSirolimusSulfonamidestemsirolimusCytokines and angiogenic factorsFirst lineInternational Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groupsPazopanibPoor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinomaTemsirolimus

Identifiers

PMID31272939
PMCPMC6938577
OpenAlexW2954426624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.