ArticleThe oncologist2025
Real-world assessment of clinical outcomes of first-line treatment in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.Targeted oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Immunotherapy in urological cancers: new paradigms and a systematic review of clinical trials and real-world evidence.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Characteristics of the tumor microenvironment and potential immunotherapy strategies in renal cell carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPapillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC), representing up to 15% of RCC cases. Phase 2 trials have evaluated first-line (1L) immunotherapy (IO)-based treatment in nccRCC, but with heterogeneous cohorts and limited comparative data. The specific value of IO for metastatic pRCC (mpRCC) remains unquantified.
methodsWe analyzed prospectively collected data from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System to assess the efficacy of 1L systemic therapy in mpRCC with IO-based regimens vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). The primary endpoint was time-to-treatment failure (TTF). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Analyses were adjusted (adj) for IMDC risk groups.
resultsFrom 2011 to 2024, 197 mpRCC patients received 1L therapy: 70 with IO (alone or in combination) and 127 with TKI. Median follow-up was 21.6 months. Median TTF was 9.9 months with IO vs 5.9 months with TKI (adjHR: 0.62 [0.43-0.91], P = .01). Median OS was 36.9 months with IO vs 23.2 months with TKI (adjHR: 0.54 [0.3-0.9], P = .018). Objective response rate was 37% with IO vs 23% with TKI (adjOR: 2.2 [0.95-5.2], P = .07). The TKI-IO subgroup showed the longest TTF (16.9 months, adjHR: 0.47 [0.26-0.85], P = .01) and OS (not reached, adjHR: 0.26 [0.08-0.83], P = .02), compared to TKI. Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 31% (IO) vs 27% (TKI).
conclusionsThis real-world study highlights the benefit of IO-based treatment in mpRCC, particularly in the TKI-IO subgroup. Our findings may inform further trials evaluating 1L IO in mpRCC.
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.