ArticleCancers2020
Comparative Efficacy of First-Line Immune-Based Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing efficacy and safety of first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A Bayesian network meta-regression analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Should Metastatic Site Inform First-Line Therapy in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?Targeted oncology · 2026Review
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Pembrolizumab-Lenvatinib Versus Axitinib-Based Regimens in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Real-world comparison of the efficacy of first-line therapies and the influence of risk factors in advanced renal cell carcinoma.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Metastatic Kidney Cancer: Does the Location of the Metastases Matter? Moving towards Personalized Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Review
- Real-world Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Current Treatment Era.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Front-Line Ipilimumab and Nivolumab or Axitinib and Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Article
- Trends of kidney cancer burden from 1990 to 2019 in European Union 15 + countries and World Health Organization regions.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clear cell renal cell carcinoma with stage IV cavoatrial tumour thrombus extension and rapid metastatic reoccurrence postsurgical treatment with review of current treatment strategies.BMJ case reports · 2022Article
- First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: What Are the Most Appropriate Combination Therapies?Cancers · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.