ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2026
Effectiveness of ICI-ICI versus ICI-TKI combinations in patients with IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a sub-analysis of the MEET-URO 33 study.
Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor doublet (ICI-ICI) and ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ICI-TKI) regimens are the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), although no head-to-head comparisons are currently available. This study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness of ICI-ICI versus ICI-TKI combinations in patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC according to International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC).
methodsThe Meet-URO 33 study is a multicentre retrospective-prospective registry collecting real-world data on patients with mRCC. Multivariable logistic and Cox models were built for objective response rate (ORR), PFS and OS, with a propensity score (PS) adjustment for baseline imbalances.
resultsAmong 1497 patients, 755 were intermediate-risk (199 ICI-ICI, 556 ICI-TKI) and 312 poor-risk (77 ICI-ICI, 212 ICI-TKI). Median follow-up was 14.2 months (8.0 months and 14.5 months in poor- and intermediate-risk subgroups, respectively). In poor-risk patients, median OS was 20.3 versus 12.9 months (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.59-1.28, p = 0.49), and median PFS was 6.7 versus 8.7 months (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79-1.54, p = 0.53), for ICI-ICI versus ICI-TKI, respectively. In the intermediate-risk patients treated with ICI-ICI versus ICI-TKI, median OS was 37.8 versus 35.5 months (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.77-1.50; p = 0.65), and median PFS was 17.8 versus 18.6 months (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.66, p = 0.050). ORR was 42.9% versus 45.8% in poor-risk patients (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39-1.34, p = 0.303) and 48.1% versus 54.3% in intermediate-risk patients (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48-1.04, p = 0.075).
conclusionsNo statistically significant differences in survival or response were observed between ICI-ICI and ICI-TKI combinations in patients with IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC.
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.