Trial reportJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2024
Standard Versus Modified Ipilimumab, in Combination With Nivolumab, in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial (PRISM).
Trial report in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- First-Line Treatment Strategies in IMDC Favourable-Risk Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Maximal feasible resection versus hybrid therapy in spinal metastases: an updated narrative review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Emerging new immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumor immunotherapy.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Molecular imaging of renal cell carcinomas: ready for prime time.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Nephrotoxicity of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Single and Combination Therapy-A Systematic and Critical Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Unveiling the best immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting: an updated systematic review and Bayesian network analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- From trash to treasure: tumor draining lymph nodes as a multi-omics goldmine in cancer therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Harnessing the power of tumor-draining lymph nodes: unveiling predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitor.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 16 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIpilimumab (IPI), in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), is an approved frontline treatment option for patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether administering IPI once every 12 weeks (modified), instead of once every 3 weeks (standard), in combination with NIVO, is associated with a favorable toxicity profile.
methodsTreatment-naïve patients with clear-cell aRCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive four doses of modified or standard IPI, 1 mg/kg, in combination with NIVO (3 mg/kg). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (trAE) among those who received at least one dose of therapy. The key secondary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified arm compared with historical sunitinib control. The study was not designed to formally compare arms for efficacy.
resultsBetween March 2018 and January 2020, 192 patients (69.8% intermediate/poor-risk) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. The incidence of grade 3-5 trAEs was significantly lower among participants receiving modified versus standard IPI (32.8%
conclusionRates of grade 3-5 trAEs were significantly lower in patients receiving modified versus standard IPI. Although 12-month PFS did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold compared with historical control, informal comparison of treatment groups did not suggest any reduction in efficacy with the modified schedule.
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.