Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37950901›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2024

A Pooled Analysis of 3 Phase II Trials of Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab After Nivolumab in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Rana R McKay, Katharina Leucht, Wanling Xie, Opeyemi Jegede, David A Braun, Michael B Atkins, Marc-Oliver Grimm, Toni K Choueiri

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Rana R McKayDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Katharina LeuchtDepartment of Urology, Universitaetsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
Wanling XieDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5995-8000
Opeyemi JegedeDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
David A BraunDepartment of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Michael B AtkinsDepartment of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3901-9924
Marc-Oliver GrimmDepartment of Urology, Universitaetsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
Toni K ChoueiriDepartment of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9201-3217
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USJena University Hospital · DEGeorgetown University · USUniversity of California San Diego · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Physician Scientist Training in Cancer ResearchT32CA009172 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI Jennifer R Brown, James A. DeCaprio · 1985 to 2026
$17.1M
Bristol-Myers SquibbNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated improved survival for treatment-naïve advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A series of clinical trials evaluated the effect of salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients without an objective response to nivolumab. Given the size and heterogeneity of these studies, we performed a pooled analysis to better inform the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab after nivolumab. PATIENTS AND

methodsEligible patients included those with advanced clear cell RCC having received no prior immunotherapy. The primary objective was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator-assessment. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

resultsThe analysis included 410 patients with clear cell RCC, of whom 340 (82.9%) had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, and 137 (33.4%) had prior treatment. The 16-18-week ORR to nivolumab prior to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 22.7% (n = 93), and best ORR to nivolumab was 25.1% (n = 103). Two hundred and thirty (56.1%) patients treated with nivolumab received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 9-19) after initiation of nivolumab [27.0% (n = 62) with stable disease and 73.0% (n = 168) with progressive disease to nivolumab]. The ORR to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 12.6% (n = 29). Six-month PFS on nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 37% (95% CI, 27-47). Median follow-up was 34.3 months and 3-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 53-64) from nivolumab start.

conclusionA small subset of patients lacking a response to nivolumab derive benefit from salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab. When possible, both drugs should be given in concomitantly, rather in an adaptive fashion.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicHumansIpilimumabNivolumabProgression-Free SurvivalIpilimumabNivolumabadaptiveimmunotherapyipilimumabnivolumabrenal cell carcinomaresponse

Identifiers

PMID37950901
PMCPMC10994246
OpenAlexW4388586239

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.