Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32599839›Full record

ArticleCancers2020

Comparative Efficacy of First-Line Immune-Based Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Reza Elaidi, Letuan Phan, Delphine Borchiellini, Philippe Barthelemy, Alain Ravaud, Stéphane Oudard, Yann Vano

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Reza ElaidiARTIC (Association pour la Recherche sur les Thérapeutiques Innovantes en Cancérologie), Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, 75015 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2049-7600
Letuan PhanARTIC (Association pour la Recherche sur les Thérapeutiques Innovantes en Cancérologie), Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, 75015 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0561-2052
Delphine BorchielliniDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, 06100 Nice, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8204-8301
Philippe BarthelemyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hôpital civil, 67091 Strasbourg, France.
Alain RavaudDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hôpital St Andre, 33000 Bordeaux, France.
Stéphane OudardDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, 75015 Paris, France.
Yann VanoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, 75015 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9410-1368
Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou · FRCentre Antoine Lacassagne · FRHôpital Civil, Strasbourg · FRHôpital Saint-André · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in a first-line setting. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-naïve patients with mRCC, from January 2015 to October 2019. The process was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches, a contrast-based model comparing HRs and ORs between studies and arm-based using parametric modeling. The outcomes for the analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA = 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For overall survival (OS), Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 96%) was the most preferable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA: 94%) and Pembro-Axi as the second best option. In the parametric models, the risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterwards. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Overall evidence suggests that pembrolizumab plus axitinib seems to have a slight advantage over the other two combinations.

Indexed as

immune-based combination therapiesmetastatic renal cell carcinomanetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32599839
PMCPMC7352474
OpenAlexW3027236841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.