ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2020
Comparable efficacy and safety between second-line and later-line nivolumab therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report: No radiographic evidence of disease for 45 months in a patient with recurrent clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with third-line combination therapy utilizing toripalimab and axitinib.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Significance of timing of therapeutic line on effectiveness of nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.Current urology · 2023Article
- Frequency of pre-treatment may not increase the immune-related adverse events of RCC patients treated with nivolumab.Medicine · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of nivolumab as second-line and later-line (third-line or thereafter) therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
methodsSixty-seven patients who received nivolumab after the failure of at least one molecular-targeted therapy were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups based on the line of nivolumab: second-line and later-line groups. Efficacy was assessed using progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) after nivolumab initiation, and objective response rate. Safety was assessed using the incidence of immune-related adverse events. These outcomes were compared between the second-line and later-line groups.
resultsForty-two patients (62.7%) received nivolumab as second-line therapy. There was no significant difference in the progression-free survival (median: 5.06 vs. 6.28 months, p = 0.691) or objective response rate (35.7% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.757) between the second-line and later-line groups. The OS tended to be longer in the second-line group (not reached vs. 26.0 months, p = 0.118), and the rate of patients who received subsequent therapy after nivolumab failure was significantly higher in the second-line group (90.9% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.0025). There was no difference in the incidences of immune-related adverse events between the second-line and later-line groups (any grade: 54.8% vs. 48.0%, p = 0.592; grade ≥ 3: 19.1% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.924).
conclusionsThe efficacy of nivolumab did not deteriorate and the tolerability was also maintained even in later-line therapy. However, a tendency of longer OS and a higher chance of subsequent therapy after nivolumab failure were observed with nivolumab as second-line therapy.
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.