Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41482401›Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Comparative Analysis of Immune-based Combination Therapy as First-line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Yuta Mukae, Kojiro Ohba, Hiromi Nakanishi, Masaharu Oki, Ken Kawada, Tsuyoshi Matsuda, Kensuke Mitsunari, Tomohiro Matsuo, Yasushi Mochizuki, Ryoichi Imamura

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

10 authors.

Yuta MukaeDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Kojiro OhbaDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan ohba-k@nagasaki-u.ac.jp.
Hiromi NakanishiDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Masaharu OkiDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Ken KawadaDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Tsuyoshi MatsudaDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Kensuke MitsunariDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Tomohiro MatsuoDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Yasushi MochizukiDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Ryoichi ImamuraDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimIn advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations (ICI-ICI) and ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations (ICI-TKI) are standard first-line therapies. However, real-world data directly comparing these approaches remain limited. This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes between ICI-ICI and ICI-TKI therapies. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 58 patients who received first-line ICI-ICI therapy (ipilimumab plus nivolumab) or ICI-TKI therapy (pembrolizumab plus axitinib, avelumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib) for advanced RCC at Nagasaki University Hospital (March 2018 to June 2024). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate (ORR). Safety profiles were also evaluated.

resultsWe included 36 patients in the ICI-ICI group and 22 in the ICI-TKI group. The median follow-up was 17.5 months. The median age of patients in the ICI-TKI group was significantly older than that in the ICI-ICI group (74

conclusionAcross all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk groups, PFS, OS, and ORR showed no significant differences between ICI-ICI and ICI-TKI therapies. Treatment selection should consider patient-specific factors. Validation through larger prospective studies is warranted.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Renal CellImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsKidney NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAxitinibFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNivolumabProtein Kinase InhibitorsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAxitinibImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsNivolumabProtein Kinase Inhibitorscombination drug therapyimmune checkpoint inhibitorRenal cell carcinomasurvival ratetyrosine kinase inhibitor

Identifiers

PMID41482401
PMCPMC12764268

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.