Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38289361›Full record

SynthesisCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2024

Updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with extended follow-up data.

Takafumi Yanagisawa, Keiichiro Mori, Akihiro Matsukawa, Tatsushi Kawada, Satoshi Katayama, Kensuke Bekku, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Pawel Rajwa, Fahad Quhal, Benjamin Pradere and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

18 authors at 9 institutions in 10 countries.

Takafumi Yanagisawa *Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Keiichiro Mori *Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. morikeiichiro29@gmail.com.
Akihiro MatsukawaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Tatsushi KawadaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Satoshi KatayamaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Kensuke BekkuDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Ekaterina LaukhtinaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Fahad QuhalDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Benjamin PradereDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Wataru FukuokayaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kosuke IwataniDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaya MurakamiDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Karim BensalahDepartment of Urology, University of Rennes, Rennes, France.
Viktor GrünwaldClinic for Medical Oncology and Clinic for Urology, West German Cancer Center Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Manuela SchmidingerDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Takahiro KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Jikei University School of Medicine · JPComprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATOkayama University · JPCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FREssen University Hospital · DEKing Fahad Specialist Hospital · SAMedical University of Silesia · PLSechenov University · RUUniversity of Jordan · JO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies are the recommended first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, no head-to-head phase-3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of different ICI-based combination therapies. Here, we compared the efficacy of various first-line ICI-based combination therapies in patients with mRCC using updated survival data from phase-3 RCTs. Three databases were searched in June 2023 for RCTs that analyzed oncologic outcomes in mRCC patients treated with ICI-based combination therapies as first-line treatment. A network meta-analysis compared outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. Subgroup analyses were based on the International mRCC Database Consortium risk classification. The treatment ranking analysis of the entire cohort showed that nivolumab + cabozantinib (81%) had the highest likelihood of improving OS, followed by nivolumab + ipilimumab (75%); pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS (99%), ORR (97%), and CR (86%). These results remained valid even when the analysis was limited to patients with intermediate/poor risk, except that nivolumab + ipilimumab had the highest likelihood of achieving CR (100%). Further, OS benefits of ICI doublets were not inferior to those of ICI + tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations. Recommendation of combination therapies with ICIs and/or tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on survival benefits and patient pretreatment risk classification will help advance personalized medicine for mRCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsFollow-Up StudiesHumansIpilimumabNivolumabPathologic Complete ResponseIpilimumabNivolumabImmune checkpoint inhibitorsMetastasisNetwork meta-analysisRenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID38289361
PMCPMC10827892
OpenAlexW4391350480

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.