Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35401238›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2022

Real-World Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in The Netherlands.

S A van Laar, K B Gombert-Handoko, R H H Groenwold, T van der Hulle, L E Visser, D Houtsma, H J Guchelaar, J Zwaveling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors.

S A van LaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
K B Gombert-HandokoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
R H H GroenwoldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
T van der HulleDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
L E VisserDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, Netherlands.
D HoutsmaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, Netherlands.
H J GuchelaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
J ZwavelingDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of treatment options for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has significantly grown in the last 15 years. Although randomized controlled trials are fundamental in investigating mRCC treatment efficacy, their external validity can be limited. Therefore, the efficacy of the different treatment options should also be evaluated in clinical practice. We performed a chart review of electronic health records using text mining software to study the current treatment patterns and outcomes. mRCC patients from two large hospitals in the Netherlands, starting treatment between January 2015 and May 2020, were included. Data were collected from electronic health records using a validated text mining tool. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Most frequent first-line treatments were pazopanib (n = 70), sunitinib (n = 34), and nivolumab with ipilimumab (n = 28). The overall median PFS values for first-line treatment were 15.7 months (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 8.8-20.7), 16.3 months (95%CI, 9.3-not estimable [NE]) for pazopanib, and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.4-NE) for sunitinib. The overall median OS values were 33.4 months (95%CI, 28.1-50.9 months), 39.3 months (95%CI, 29.5-NE) for pazopanib, and 28.1 months (95%CI, 7.0-NE) for sunitinib. For nivolumab with ipilimumab, median PFS and median OS were not reached. Of the patients who finished first- and second-line treatments, 64 and 62% received follow-up treatments, respectively. With most patients starting on pazopanib and sunitinib, these real-world treatment outcomes were most likely better than in pivotal trials, which may be due to extensive follow-up treatments.

Indexed as

electronic health record (EHR)immune check inhibitor (ICI)renal cell carcinoma (RCC)text-miningtyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)

Identifiers

PMID35401238
PMCPMC8983834

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.