Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40889073›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026

Impact of first-line dual immuno-oncology combination therapy versus immuno-oncology plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor on outcomes of second-line VEGFR-TKI in advanced RCC: a real-world multi-institutional analysis.

Koichi Nishimura, Hiroki Ishihara, Yuki Nemoto, Shinsuke Mizoguchi, Takayuki Nakayama, Hironori Fukuda, Kazuhiko Yoshida, Hiroaki Shimmura, Yasunobu Hashimoto, Junpei Iizuka and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Koichi NishimuraDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University Adachi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroki IshiharaDepartment of Urology, Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital, 5-11-5 Nishikawaguchi, Kawaguchi, Saitama, Japan. ishihara.hiroki@twmu.ac.jp.
Yuki NemotoDepartment of Urology, Jyoban Hospital, Fukushima, Japan.
Shinsuke MizoguchiDepartment of Urology, Saiseikai Kazo Hospital, Saitama, Japan.
Takayuki NakayamaDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hironori FukudaDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Kazuhiko YoshidaDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroaki ShimmuraDepartment of Urology, Jyoban Hospital, Fukushima, Japan.
Yasunobu HashimotoDepartment of Urology, Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital, 5-11-5 Nishikawaguchi, Kawaguchi, Saitama, Japan.
Junpei IizukaDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tsunenori KondoDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University Adachi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshio TakagiDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData on the impact of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapy regimen on the outcomes of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) remain limited.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated data from 105 patients who discontinued first-line ICI combination therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) after second-line TKI treatment and PFS2, defined as the sum of PFS during first-line and second-line therapies, were compared between patients who received dual ICI combination therapy (i.e., immunotherapy [IO]-IO) and those who received a combination of ICI and TKI (i.e., IO-TKI).

resultOf the 105 patients, 66 (63%) and 39 (37%) were treated with first-line IO-IO and IO-TKI combination therapy, respectively. The conversion rate to second-line therapy was higher in the IO-IO treatment group than in the IO-TKI group (73 vs. 54%, p = 0.0489). Sixty-six patients received second-line TKI treatment, and second-line PFS was longer in the IO-IO treatment group than in the IO-TKI group (median: 12.1 vs. 6.3 months, p = 0.0048). Additionally, PFS2 was longer in the IO-IO treatment group than in the IO-TKI group (median: 19.7 vs. 15.4 months, p = 0.0416). After adjusting for other covariates, the first-line treatment regimen (i.e., IO-IO vs. IO-TKI) was identified as an independent factor for PFS2 (HR: 0.51, p = 0.0057).

conclusionThis retrospective study using real-world data showed that second-line PFS and PFS2 were longer in patients treated with prior IO-IO combination therapy than in those treated with IO-TKI combination therapy.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Renal CellImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyKidney NeoplasmsProtein Kinase InhibitorsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeTyrosine Kinase InhibitorsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProtein Kinase InhibitorsReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorTyrosine Kinase InhibitorsImmune checkpoint inhibitorKidney cancerPrognosisSubsequent therapyTargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID40889073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.