Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41530265›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Comparative efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapies by metastatic site in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Shingo Toyoda, Lan Inoki, Mamoru Hashimoto, Wataru Fukuokaya, Keiichiro Mori, Shingo Nishimura, Ryoichi Maenosono, Takehiro Iwata, Kensuke Bekku, Takuhisa Nukaya and 8 more

Abstract readClinical StudyComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

18 authors.

Shingo ToyodaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2, Ohnohigashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Lan InokiDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2, Ohnohigashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Mamoru HashimotoDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2, Ohnohigashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan.
Wataru FukuokayaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Shingo NishimuraDepartment of Urology, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Okayama, Japan.
Ryoichi MaenosonoDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan.
Takehiro IwataDepartment of Urology, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Okayama, Japan.
Kensuke BekkuDepartment of Urology, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Okayama, Japan.
Takuhisa NukayaDepartment of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan.
Takafumi YanagisawaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Takuya TsujinoDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan.
Kazumasa KomuraDepartment of Urology, Kawasaki University School of Medicine, Kurashiki, Japan.
Kiyoshi TakaharaDepartment of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan.
Teruo InamotoDepartment of Urology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan.
Haruhito AzumaDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan.
Kazutoshi FujitaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2, Ohnohigashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan. kfujita@med.kindai.ac.jp.
JK-FOOT study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Few studies have investigated the efficacy of immuno-oncology (IO) combinations at different metastatic sites in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We evaluated the differential efficacy of IO-IO and IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations by metastatic site in metastatic RCC (mRCC). This retrospective multicenter study by the JK-FOOT Study Group included 579 patients with intermediate- or poor-risk mRCC (per International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium criteria) treated with first-line IO combinations between September 2018 and December 2024. Metastatic sites were lymph nodes, lungs, bones, liver, brain, and others. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); the secondary endpoint was objective response rate. Efficacy was compared between IO-IO and IO-TKI for each site. For lymph node (n = 36), lung (n = 132), or brain (n = 16) metastases, OS or PFS was not significantly different between IO-IO and IO-TKI. In bone metastases (n = 80), OS tended to favor IO-TKI (P = 0.053). In liver metastases (n = 22), OS was significantly longer with IO-TKI (P = 0.011). IO-TKI may be a more appropriate first-line option than IO-IO for mRCC with bone or liver metastases, while efficacy is similar for other sites.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Renal CellImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsKidney NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisProtein Kinase InhibitorsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProtein Kinase InhibitorsBone metastasisImmuno-oncologyliver metastasisMetastatic renal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID41530265
PMCPMC12835035

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.