SynthesisYonsei medical journal2020
Tolerability of Alternative Dosing Schedules for Sunitinib: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Yonsei medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcome measures reported by cancer patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a methodological study.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe standard schedule for sunitinib treatment is 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (4/2) in first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Schedule modifications, including 2 weeks on and 1 week off (2/1), appear to reduce the total number of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) without compromising efficacy. Even though TRAEs can qualitatively differ from each other, it is not clear as to what effects a 2/1 schedule has on individual TRAEs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis meta-analysis included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and four non-randomized controlled studies (non-RCTs) that compared the two schedules in parallel. The primary objective was to estimate risk of individual adverse events (AEs) with a sunitinib 2/1 schedule versus a 4/2 schedule. Seven representative AEs were evaluated as standard data for the RCT and as weighted pooling data of the non-RCTs. Random effects modelling with Review Manager v5.3 was used to pool study-level data using the inverse-variance of each study as the weight.
resultsThe five selected studies included a total of 484 patients with mRCC. Risk ratios for fatigue for a 2/1 schedule were significantly lower than those for a 4/2 schedule {0.69 [95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.51, 0.95] in the RCT and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63, 0.94) in the non-RCTs}. Other TRAEs, except diarrhea and anorexia, also tended to decrease in both sets. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between 2/1 and standard schedules.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that a 2/1 schedule of sunitinib lowers the risk of fatigue and the occurrence other AEs without compromising efficacy.
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.