ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Comparison of effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus nivolumab plus cabozantinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a real-world study.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (Pem-Len) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (Nivo-Cabo) are effective first-line regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, real-world data directly comparing these regimens are limited. We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare their clinical outcomes in Japanese patients.
methodsPatients with metastatic RCC who received Pem-Len or Nivo-Cabo as first-line systemic therapy at Kobe University Hospital and affiliated institutions between August 2018 and September 2025 were included. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 139 patients received Pem-Len and 97 received Nivo-Cabo. Patients in the Nivo-Cabo group were significantly older than those in the Pem-Len group. After propensity score matching for prognostic factors, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in the Pem-Len group than in the Nivo-Cabo group (not reached vs. 15.9 months, P = 0.019), but there was no significant difference in overall survival between the groups (not reached vs. 31.5 months, P = 0.308). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events was comparable between the groups (51.8% vs. 55.4%, P = 0.756).
conclusionIn this real-world analysis, Pem-Len was associated with longer PFS than Nivo-Cabo in patients with metastatic RCC, with comparable safety profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42204034What 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.