Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647294›Full record

ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2024

Real-world patterns of treatment and response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre UK-wide review with UK Renal Oncology Collaborative (UK ROC).

R Frazer, J M McGrane, A Challapalli, G Ratnayake, J Malik, C Forde, S Alam, E Jones, A Shaheen, A Ferrara and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Treatments for renal cell carcinoma: NICE Pilot Treatment Pathways Appraisal.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

22 authors.

R FrazerVelindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff.
J M McGraneRoyal Cornwall Hospital Oncology Department, Truro, Cornwall.
A ChallapalliBristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol.
G RatnayakeMusgrove Park Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton.
J MalikEdinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh.
C FordeThe Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast.
S AlamMount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood.
E JonesUniversity Hospital Southampton, Southampton.
A ShaheenNewcastle Cancer Centre, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
A FerraraRoyal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Fulwood.
S GuptaVelindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff.
S Y MoorcraftSouth Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Swansea.
N MoonRoyal Cornwall Hospital Oncology Department, Truro, Cornwall.
D ParslowPlymouth Oncology Centre, University Hospital Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth.
Y WangOxford University Hospitals, Oxford.
S WaltersVelindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff.
J LiuHull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Kingston Upon Hull.
T GeldartUniversity Hospitals Dorset, Bournemouth.
C DykeSouth Devon and Torbay NHS Foundation Trust, Torbay.
A ReniRoyal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter.
G J Melendez-TorresPeninsula Technology Assessment Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
A BahlBristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The introductions of immunotherapy and first-line combinations have led to major changes in systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) options and outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Objectives: To evaluate current real-world UK practice in the immunotherapy era looking at survival outcomes by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk stratification and prescribing patterns/drop-off rates of SACT in mRCC. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective multi-institutional cohort of SACT patients for mRCC at 17 centres across the UK from 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2021. Patient characteristics, IMDC risk group and lines of therapy were recorded. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for IMDC groups were analysed. Results: Of the 1319 patients, 22.3%, 52.7% and 24.3% were IMDC group favourable, intermediate and poor, respectively. Across all risk groups and censoring for patients who have not progressed on their current therapy line, 59.2%, 23.5% and 6.3 % of first-line patients with SACT received second-, third- and fourth-line treatments; 40.1%, 33.2% and 44.2%, respectively, did not receive immunotherapy at any stage in their treatment. Median PFS was statistically different by IMDC risk group: 14.0, 8.2 and 4.8 months in the favourable, intermediate and poor groups ( Conclusions: The majority of patients receive only one or two treatment lines in mRCC. The IMDC prognostic risk groups remain valid in the immunotherapy era. A significant group of patients in this cohort did not receive immunotherapy at any stage.

Indexed as

drop-off ratesIMDCimmunotherapyrenal cell carcinomatreatment sequencing

Identifiers

PMID41647294
PMCPMC12836671

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.