SynthesisMedicine2022
Systemic therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the second-line setting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2022. 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.
- Treatments for renal cell carcinoma: NICE Pilot Treatment Pathways Appraisal.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- The Decision to Surgically Resect Recurrent Renal Cell Carcinoma: More Evidence that Careful Case Selection by Surgeons Is Associated with Better Survival.European urology open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the survival benefit and safety profile of current available second-line treatment options of metastatic renal cell carcinomav.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically researched for eligible articles which were published before July 20, 2021. Studies comparing overall/progression free survival (OS/PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomav were included.
resultsNine trials (with 4911 patients) were finally included for final network meta-analysis. Cabozantinib, lenvatinib, and lenvatinib plus everolimus were associated with significantly better PFS, OS, and ORR compared with everolimus, and lenvatinib plus everolimus emerged as the best option. As for grade 3 to 4 AEs, nivolumab showed significantly lower risk of AEs compared with everolimus. Other included treatments were associated with significantly increased risk of AEs. When comprehensively assessed the efficacy and safety of included treatments based on the ranking analysis of PFS, ORR, and grade 3 to 4 AEs, lenvatinib plus everolimus, cabozantinib, and nivolumab showed superior efficacy over other treatments, with relatively lower risk of grade 3 to 4 AEs.
conclusionsAmong all included therapies, Lenvatinib plus everolimus was identified as the most effective treatment approach, with the best PFS, OS, and ORR. nivolumab was associated with decreased incidence of grade 3 to 4 AEs among included treatment therapies. When comprehensively evaluated the efficacy and safety of included treatment options, lenvatinib plus everolimus, cabozantinb, and nivolumab were associated with better survival benefits and lower risk of AEs. Future studies should focus on the direct comparison of different second-line treatment in real-world populations.
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.