Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32874210›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2020

First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Yingjie Su, Jie Fu, Jiangyang Du, Bin Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors.

Yingjie SuDepartment of Pharmacy, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Jie FuDepartment of Pharmacy, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Jiangyang DuDepartment of Pharmacy, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Bin WuMedical Decision and Economic Group, Department of Pharmacy, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, South Campus, Jiangyue Road 1600, Shanghai 200127, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6696-7471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of ICIs for newly diagnosed aRCC patients in the first-line setting.

methodsTrials evaluating ICI regimens as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed aRCC were searched and included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the US payer's perspective. The key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the NMA, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

resultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3758 patients receiving first-line ICIs treatment were analyzed. The NMA showed that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was ranked higher than the other three ICI regimens and sunitinib in the overall population. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib achieved more health benefits than the other ICI regimens and sunitinib in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and negative tumors, respectively. Among the four ICI regimens, only the ICERs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib were lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY) in the overall and PD-L1-positive populations, and none of four ICI regimens were lower than $150,000/QALY in PD-L1-negative populations.

conclusionsThe NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab is the most favorable first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive aRCC compared with other ICI regimens and sunitinib. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is likely to be an alternative for PD-L1-negative aRCC due to its more favorable health advantages.

Indexed as

cost-effectiveness analysisimmune checkpoint inhibitorsnetwork meta-analysisrenal-cell carcinomasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32874210
PMCPMC7436799
OpenAlexW3044336467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.