Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38390328›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024

Efficacy and toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Xiangyu Chen, Zhunan Xu, Changgui Wu, Lijun Xie, Pengyu Wang, Xiaoqiang Liu

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

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiangyu Chen *Department of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Zhunan Xu *Department of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Changgui Wu *Department of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Lijun XieDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Pengyu WangDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Xiaoqiang LiuDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Tianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a significant overall survival advantage over standard advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) therapies, tumor response to these agents remains poor. Some studies have shown that combination therapy including an ICI appears to be the best treatment; however, the overall benefit in terms of efficacy and toxicity still needs to be assessed. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of several combinations that include an ICI to provide a basis for clinical treatment selection. Methods: We conducted a thorough search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles from January 2010 to June 2023. R 4.4.2 and STATA 16.0 were used to analyze data; hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results. Results: An indirect comparison showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib were the most effective treatments for progression-free survival (PFS), with no significant differences between the two interventions (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.96-1.78; P=0.08); rank probability showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib had a 57.1% chance of being the preferred treatment. In the absence of indirect comparisons between pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (40.2%) was the best treatment option for overall survival (OS). Compared to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.65; P=0.02) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78; P<0.001) had a lower incidence of overall adverse events (AEs). Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in the highest PFS and OS rates, respectively. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib may be the best option when AEs are a concern. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202410078.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Renal CellImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsKidney NeoplasmsAnilidesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedHumansNivolumabPhenylurea CompoundsProgression-Free SurvivalPyridinesQuinolinesTreatment OutcomeAnilidesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedcabozantinibImmune Checkpoint InhibitorslenvatinibNivolumabpembrolizumabPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesQuinolinesadvanced renal cell carcinomacombination therapyefficacyimmune checkpoint inhibitorstyrosine kinase inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID38390328
PMCPMC10881808
OpenAlexW4391649975

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.