Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32757054›Full record

SynthesisCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2021

Systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Keiichiro Mori, Hadi Mostafaei, Noriyoshi Miura, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Stefano Luzzago, Manuela Schmidinger, Andreas Bruchbacher, Benjamin Pradere, Shin Egawa, Shahrokh F Shariat

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 11 countries.

Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6147-6569
Hadi MostafaeiDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Noriyoshi MiuraDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Stefano LuzzagoCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Manuela SchmidingerClinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas BruchbacherDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Benjamin PradereDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Shin EgawaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduriwien.ac.at.
Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATJikei University School of Medicine · JPMcGill University Health Centre · CAEhime University · JPTabriz University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversité de Tours · FRUniversity of Jordan · JO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeManagement of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the first-line setting. However, direct comparative data are inadequate to inform treatment decisions. Therefore, we aimed to assess first-line therapy for mRCC and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments. MATERIALS AND

methodsMultiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in mRCC patients were considered eligible.

resultsSix studies matched our eligibility criteria. For OS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.73-0.98] and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.75-0.99) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably the best option based on analysis of the treatment ranking. For PFS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76-0.97) and avelumab plus axitinib (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.74-0.98) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib was likely to be the preferred option based on analysis of the treatment ranking, closely followed by pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had significantly lower rates of serious AEs than sunitinib.

conclusionPembrolizumab plus axitinib seemed to be the most efficacious first-line agents, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the most favorable efficacy-tolerability equilibrium. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials in an expanding treatment options without direct comparison between approved drugs.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisFirst-lineImmune-checkpoint inhibitorsNetwork meta-analysisRenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID32757054
PMCPMC7889529
OpenAlexW3047001933

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.