Trial reportJCO oncology practice2026
Long-Term Performance of Prognostic Models for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Improved Survival With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.
Trial report in JCO oncology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Impact of Metastatic Pattern in Renal Cell Carcinoma: IMDC, IMDC-7, and Meet-URO Scores.Journal of kidney cancer and VHL · 2026Article
- First-Line Treatment Strategies in IMDC Favourable-Risk Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.Oncology research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn the era of prolonged survival for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) with standard-of-care first-line therapy now including immune checkpoint inhibitor, re-evaluation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic models is overdue.
methodsData from 1,052 patients with aRCC treated on the CheckMate-214 phase III randomized trial with first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab or sunitinib were analyzed after minimum 5 years of follow-up. The end point was overall survival (OS). To investigate long-term prognostication with each treatment approach, model performance based upon continuous risk score was assessed in a time-dependent manner of increasing 6-month intervals and globally over full follow-up, using discrimination concordance (c)-indices.
resultsWith time-dependent assessment, the IMDC and MSKCC models maintained their performance over approximately 2 years from sunitinib initiation (c ≥0.69 through 18-24 months); thereafter, the models' performances with long-term OS attenuated. Over full follow-up, the models' discrimination was c = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.658 to 0.664) and c = 0.64 (95% CI, 0.640 to 0.645), respectively, for the sunitinib group. After nivolumab + ipilimumab initiation, the IMDC and MSKCC models' global discrimination was c = 0.63 (95% CI, 0.628 to 0.634) and c = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.607 to 0.614), respectively. The models' performances were attenuated in the short term (c ranging 0.64-0.69 through 18-24 months) and the long term.
conclusionThis retrospective analysis of the CheckMate-214 trial, in which nivolumab + ipilimumab improved survival versus sunitinib with 48% and 37% of patients, respectively, surviving beyond 5 years, confirmed the strength of the models' prognostication for the early years after first-line sunitinib initiation continuing to stratify three prognostic categories, but also diminished discrimination among long-term survivors and with initiation of nivolumab + ipilimumab. As novel treatments are developed and patients with aRCC live longer, new models to estimate long-term prognosis are needed.
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.