Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33291600›Full record

ReviewCancers2020

Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Needing a Second-Line Therapy: A Systematic Review.

Nicola Longo, Marco Capece, Giuseppe Celentano, Roberto La Rocca, Gianluigi Califano, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Carlo Buonerba, Fabio Esposito, Luigi Napolitano, Francesco Mangiapia and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Expert opinion document on the management of desmoid tumours in adult patients in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

13 authors.

Nicola LongoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Marco CapeceDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1951-404X
Giuseppe CelentanoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Roberto La RoccaDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Gianluigi CalifanoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Claudia Collà RuvoloDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Carlo BuonerbaDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Fabio EspositoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Luigi NapolitanoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Francesco MangiapiaDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Ferdinando FuscoDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Urology Unit, University of Campania 'Luigi Vanvitelli', 80131 Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo MironeDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Massimiliano CretaDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A high percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) require a second-line option. We aimed to summarize available evidences about the clinicopathological profile of mRCC patients who receive a second-line therapy. A systematic review was performed in August 2020. We included papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling mRCC patients entering a second-line therapy. Twenty-nine studies enrolling 7650 patients (73.5% male, mean age: 55 to 70 years) were included. Clear cell histology was reported in 74.4% to 100% of cases. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immunotherapy, bevacizumab, mTOR inhibitors, and chemotherapy were adopted as first line option in 68.5%, 29.2%, 2.9%, 0.6%, and 0.2% of patients, respectively. Discontinuation of first-line therapy was due to progression and toxicity in 18.4% to 100% and in 17% to 48.8% of patients, respectively. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 or 1 in most cases. Most prevalent prognostic categories according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre score were intermediate and good. About 77.8% of patients harboured ≥2 metastatic sites. In conclusion, patients who enter a second-line therapy are heterogeneous in terms of a clinical-pathological profile. Tailoring of second-line treatment strategies is strongly advocated.

Indexed as

metastaticrenal cell carcinomasecond line therapy

Identifiers

PMID33291600
PMCPMC7761871

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.