Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39303200›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2025

Adjuvant Nivolumab for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma at High Risk of Recurrence After Nephrectomy: Part B of the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III CheckMate 914 Trial.

Robert J Motzer, Axel Bex, Paul Russo, Yoshihiko Tomita, Hernan Javier Cutuli, Carlos Rojas, Marine Gross-Goupil, Giovanni Schinzari, Bohuslav Melichar, Philippe Barthélémy and 14 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cancer-related fatigue during treatment with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors.

Robert J MotzerDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-6925-2327
Axel BexNetherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8499-2662
Paul RussoDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Yoshihiko TomitaNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan.
Hernan Javier CutuliHospital Sirio Libanés, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carlos RojasBradford Hill, Santiago, Chile.
Marine Gross-GoupilCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3176-4076
Giovanni SchinzariFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Bohuslav MelicharPalacký University Medical School and Teaching Hospital, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Philippe BarthélémyInstitut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe, Strasbourg, France.
Abraham Ruiz GarciaHospital 1ro de Octubre, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID 0009-0001-6573-3841
Jeffrey SosmanNorthwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Marc-Oliver GrimmJena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3084-8654
Jeffrey C GohICON Research, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3103-146X
Cristina SuarezVall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.
Christian K KollmannsbergerBC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6329-761X
Suresh G NairLehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA.ORCID 0000-0001-7763-9732
Brian M ShuchUniversity of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.ORCID 0000-0003-2065-3570
Jian HuangSun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Burcin SimsekBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ.
Julia SpiridigliozziBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ.
Chung-Wei LeeBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ.
Maximiliano van Kooten LosioBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ.
Viktor GrünwaldUniversity Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2083-7687

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCheckMate 914 is a two-part, randomized phase III trial evaluating adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (part A) or adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (part B) versus placebo in mutually exclusive populations of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence. Part A showed no disease-free survival (DFS) benefit for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. We report results from part B.

methodsPatients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses), placebo, or nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks for up to four doses). The planned treatment duration was 24 weeks (approximately 5.5 months). The primary end point was DFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) for nivolumab versus placebo; safety was a secondary end point.

resultsOverall, 825 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (n = 411), placebo (n = 208), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 206). With a median follow-up of 27.0 months (range, 18.0-42.4), the primary end point of improved DFS per BICR with nivolumab versus placebo was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.21];

conclusionPart B of CheckMate 914 did not meet the primary end point of improved DFS for nivolumab versus placebo in patients with localized RCC at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellIpilimumabKidney NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNephrectomyNivolumabAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleIpilimumabNivolumab

Identifiers

PMID39303200
PMCPMC11709003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.