SynthesisMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2026
Efficacy and safety of immunotherapy-based combination therapy as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To update a network meta-analysis of first-line immunotherapy combinations in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using short-term data for primary analysis and long-term plus newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for subgroup analyses. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases for articles from inception to 22 December 2024, performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed using hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (OR) in all-risk and intermediate- and poor-risk subgroups. Fourteen articles and nine RCTs involving 6,193 patients and nine regimens were included. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) improved OS compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.42-0.76) showed superior PFS to pembrolizumab plus axitinib with comparable efficacy to nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.96-1.78) and higher ORR versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.92). Rank probabilities identified pembrolizumab plus axitinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as optimal regimens in all-risk populations. Subgroup analyses prioritized pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PFS: 98.8%), toripalimab plus axitinib (OS: 77.3%), and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (ORR: 94.9%) for intermediate- and poor-risk patients. Conclusions require validation due to limited trials and methodological heterogeneity. In the first-line treatment of advanced RCC, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib enhances survival with poorer safety versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab's improved tolerability. Toripalimab plus axitinib may be associated with relatively greater efficacy in intermediate- and poor-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42484760What 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.