ArticleBMC cancer2023
Optimal sequencing of the first- and second-line target therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: based on nationally representative data analysis from the Korean National Health Insurance System.
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe authors intend to compare the effects of each targeted therapy (TT) in the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using big data based on the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS) and determine the optimal treatment sequence.
methodsData on the medical use of patients with kidney cancer were obtained from the NHIS database from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2020. Patient variables included age, sex, income level, place of residence, prescribing department, and duration from diagnosis to the prescription date. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) for each drug and sequencing. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) according to age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index based on the primary TTs.
resultsAfter 1:1 PSM, the sunitinib (SUN) (n = 1,214) and pazopanib (PAZ) (n = 1,214) groups showed a well-matched distribution across the entire cohort. In the primary treatment group, PAZ had lower OS than SUN (HR, 1.167; p = 0.0015). In the secondary treatment group, axitinib (AXI) had more favorable OS than cabozantinib (CAB) (HR, 0.735; p = 0.0118), and everolimus had more adverse outcomes than CAB (HR, 1.544; p < 0.0001). In the first to second TT sequencing, SUN-AXI had the highest OS; however, there was no statistically significant difference when compared with PAZ-AXI, which was the second highest (HR, 0.876; p = 0.3312). The 5-year survival rate was calculated in the following order: SUN-AXI (51.44%), PAZ-AXI (47.12%), SUN-CAB (43.59%), and PAZ-CAB (34.28%). When the four sequencing methods were compared, only SUN-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.003) and PAZ-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.017) were statistically significant.
conclusionsIn a population-based RWD analysis of Korean patients with mRCC, SUN-AXI sequencing was shown to be the most effective among the first to second TT sequencing methods in treatment, with a relative survival advantage over other sequencing combinations. To further support the results of this study, risk-stratified analysis is needed.
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.