ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
The efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic drugs in renal cell carcinomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Emerging Role of ctDNA Fragmentomics and Epigenetic Signatures in the Early Detection, Minimal Residual Disease Assessment, and Precision Monitoring of Renal Cell Carcinoma.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Adverse events of immune checkpoint therapy alone versus when combined with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: a pooled meta-analysis of 1735 patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of solid malignant tumors using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with antiangiogenic drugs, has gradually become an active field of clinical research. However, the results are inconsistent. Therefore, we designed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICIs combined with antiangiogenic drugs in patients with solid malignant tumors. We found that the focus of combination therapy studies was on renal cell carcinomas (RCC).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to summarize the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and the odds ratio (OR) for objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher.
resultsA total of 6 studies were included. We found that patients who received antiangiogenic drugs combined with ICIs had better OS [HR =0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60-0.89], PFS (HR =0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.89), ORR (OR =2.34, 95% CI: 1.35-4.04) and DCR (OR =1.52, 95% CI: 1.21-1.91) than those without ICIs. There was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs (OR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.52-1.11). Subgroup analyses showed that combination therapy resulted in a lower risk of death in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1% or <1%, and better PFS in patients with RCCs who were of different ages, different genders, and different International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk scores (favorable/intermediate/poor).
conclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that ICIs combined with antiangiogenic drugs can provide more clinical benefits to patients with solid malignant tumors without significantly increasing side effects. More clinical trials are needed to validate these findings further.
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.