ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2020
Survival prognoses of Heng intermediate-risk patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy: A real-world, single-center retrospective study.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2020. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in Heng intermediate-risk patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line immunotherapy (IT) or targeted therapy (TT). Materials and Methods: From 2000 to 2017, a total of 186 intermediate-risk mRCC patients treated with first-line IT (n=64, 34.4%) or TT (n=122, 65.6%) were retrospectively evaluated for PFS, OS, and CSS using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models for their risk factors with a p-value for significance of <0.05. Results: During a median 5.08-month of systemic treatment and 92.22 months of follow-up, the median PFS, OS, and CSS were 5.16, 18.44, and 19.04 months, respectively. The comparison of baseline characteristics between the two groups showed a significantly higher rate of T3-4 stages, a lower rate of high nuclear grades, shorter follow-up, longer treatment durations, lesser rates of cytoreductive nephrectomy, a lower objective response rate, and no cases of complete response in the TT group compared with the IT group (p<0.05). The survival comparisons between the two groups showed that PFS was significantly different, whereas OS and CSS were not significantly different. The multivariate analyses showed that synchronous metastatic type(hazard ratio [HR], 2.285), IT (HR, 1.746), and treatment-free interval <1 year (HR, 1.926) were significant factors for PFS, whereas none of the risk factors were significant for OS or CSS. Conclusions: TT significantly prolonged PFS compared with IT, whereas long-term survival was not significantly different in intermediate-risk mRCC patients.
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.