Observational studyInternational urology and nephrology2026
Comparison of clinical outcomes of cabozantinib plus nivolumab and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Observational study 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes and safety of cabozantinib plus nivolumab (C + N) and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
methodsThis multicenter retrospective analysis included 92 patients with mRCC treated with either C + N or L + P as first-line therapy between April 2018 and August 2024. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent prognostic factors for PFS.
resultsFifty-three patients received C + N and 39 received L + P. PFS (24.1 months vs. not reached, P = 0.725) and OS (46.7 months vs. not reached, P = 0.912) were not significantly different between the C + N and L + P groups. Over a median follow-up duration of 13.9 months, 31 patients experienced disease progression and 12 died. ORR was higher in the C + N group than in the L + P group (79% vs. 49%, P = 0.002), whereas DCR (100% vs. 95%, P = 0.096) and grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (47% vs. 36%, P = 0.280) were comparable. In the multivariable analysis, the treatment regimen (C + N as a reference) was not significantly associated with PFS (hazard ratio: 0.76, P = 0.476). Favorable/intermediate International mRCC Database Consortium risk was identified as an independent prognostic factor for PFS.
conclusionTreatment with C + N and L + P resulted in comparable PFS, OS, and safety profiles in patients with mRCC. Both regimens can be used to treat mRCC based on individual characteristics.
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.