ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2026
Efficacy and safety of first-line immunotherapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: First-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) has evolved from the cytokine era to the current standard of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations. Due to the lack of direct head-to-head comparisons among these regimens, this updated network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to provide the most contemporary evidence by integrating the latest clinical data through 2026, including emerging regimens like benmelstobart plus anlotinib. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library through January 31, 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line immunotherapy in aRCC. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A frequentist random-effects NMA was performed, and regimens were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. Results: A total of 27 articles reporting on 21 RCTs (11,779 patients) were included. Regarding efficacy, the combination of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib demonstrated the most significant survival benefit, ranking first in SUCRA for OS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.88] and PFS (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.38-0.58). Notably, benmelstobart plus anlotinib achieved the highest ORR [odds ratio (OR): 7.55, 95% CI: 3.99-14.28], followed by pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (OR: 4.18, 95% CI: 2.29-7.61). Other ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations and nivolumab plus ipilimumab also significantly improved OS compared to sunitinib. Regarding safety, nivolumab monotherapy was the best-tolerated treatment (SUCRA: 0.974), while regimens containing interferon-alpha (IFN-α) or interleukin-2 (IL-2) were the most toxic. Network consistency was well-maintained, and sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the primary survival rankings. Conclusions: For the first-line treatment of unstratified overall aRCC populations, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and benmelstobart plus anlotinib emerge as highly effective immunotherapy-based combinations. However, these global rankings from pooled cohorts should not be interpreted as absolute clinical recommendations for all subgroups. Real-world treatment selection must be highly individualized and strictly tailored to the patient's specific International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk profile alongside the efficacy-safety trade-off.
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.