SynthesisTargeted oncology2026
Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Targeted 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens are the standard first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, their comparative effectiveness and safety in routine clinical practice remain incompletely characterised.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically synthesise comparative real-world evidence on the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with advanced RCC.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from database inception to 21 January 2026, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Observational cohort studies evaluating ICI-based regimens in advanced RCC with an active comparator were included. Primary efficacy outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with efficacy and safety evaluated separately. Owing to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesised narratively.
resultsOverall, 58 retrospective cohort studies comprising 35,215 patients were included. Most studies evaluated first-line therapy and involved populations with mixed histology and heterogeneous prognostic risk profiles. Overall, ICI-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations were generally associated with more favourable survival outcomes compared with dual ICI therapy or TKI monotherapy, with the most consistent benefit observed for PFS. Evidence comparing dual ICI therapy with TKI monotherapy was mixed, with most studies reporting no statistically significant differences in survival outcomes. Comparative safety data were limited, with the majority of studies relying on unadjusted descriptive analyses, limiting robust comparative interpretation of safety outcomes.
conclusionsReal-world evidence suggests that ICI-TKI combinations are associated with more favourable survival outcomes compared with other treatment options in advanced RCC, while the comparative effectiveness of dual ICI therapy versus TKI monotherapy remains inconclusive. Substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations, particularly in safety reporting, limit definitive interpretation. High-quality real-world studies incorporating robust confounding adjustment and clinically relevant subgroup analyses are needed to better inform treatment selection in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRY: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD420251149614.
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.