Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35237353›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2022

Application of the Meet-URO score to metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with second- and third-line cabozantinib.

Sara Elena Rebuzzi, Luigi Cerbone, Alessio Signori, Matteo Santoni, Veronica Murianni, Ugo De Giorgi, Giuseppe Procopio, Camillo Porta, Michele Milella, Umberto Basso and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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
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

18 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara Elena RebuzziMedical Oncology Unit, Ospedale San Paolo, Via Genova, 30, 17100 Savona, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0546-6304
Luigi CerboneInserm U981, Villejuif, France.
Alessio SignoriDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Section of Biostatistics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Matteo SantoniOncology Unit, Macerata Hospital, Macerata, Italy.
Veronica MurianniMedical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Ugo De GiorgiDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) 'Dino Amadori', Meldola, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7520-2908
Giuseppe ProcopioSS Oncologia Medica Genitourinaria, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy.
Camillo PortaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Michele MilellaMedical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Umberto BassoMedical Oncology Unit 1, Department of Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV-IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
Francesco MassariMedical Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6476-6871
Marco MaruzzoMedical Oncology Unit 1, Department of Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV-IRCCS, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6256-9249
Roberto IacovelliMedical Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Nicola BattelliOncology Unit, Macerata Hospital, Macerata, Italy.
Luca CarmiscianoDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Section of Biostatistics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Giuseppe Luigi BannaCandiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0764-3650
Sebastiano ButiMedical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0876-0226
Giuseppe FornariniMedical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Istituto Oncologico Veneto · ITOspedale di MacerataOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITUniversity of Genoa · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona · ITAzienda USL di Bologna · ITCandiolo Cancer Institute · ITFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITInserm · FRIstituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori · ITOspedale San Paolo · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe addition of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and bone metastases to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (by the Meet-URO score) has been shown to better stratify pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. This study aimed to validate the Meet-URO score in patients receiving cabozantinib to assess its predictivity and prognostic role.

methodsA multicenter retrospective analysis evaluated mRCC patients receiving ⩾second-line cabozantinib. NLR, IMDC score and bone metastases were assessed before the start of cabozantinib. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Harrell's

resultsOverall, 174 mRCC patients received cabozantinib as second and third line (51.7% and 48.3%, respectively) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months. A shorter median overall survival (mOS) was observed for the IMDC poor-risk group, NLR ⩾3.2 and the presence of bone metastases, while the IMDC intermediate-risk group had a similar mOS to the favourable-risk one. Applying the Meet-URO score, three risk groups were identified: group 1 (55.2% of patients) with a score of 0-3, group 2 (38.5%) with a score of 4-8 and group 3 (6.3%) with a score of 9. Compared to group 1 (mOS: 39.4 months), a statistically significant worse mOS was observed in group 2 (11.2 months) and group 3 (3.2 months) patients, respectively. The Meet-URO

conclusionThis analysis showed that the Meet-URO score provides a more accurate prognostic stratification than the IMDC score in mRCC patients treated with ⩾second-line cabozantinib besides nivolumab. Moreover, it is an easy-to-use tool with no additional costs for clinical practice (web-calculator is available at: https://proviso.shinyapps.io/Meet-URO15_score/). Future investigations will include the application of the Meet-URO score to the first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies.

Indexed as

biomarkerscabozantinibclinical factorsprognostic scorerenal cell carcinomatarget therapy

Identifiers

PMID35237353
PMCPMC8883304
OpenAlexW4214774385

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.