Observational studyCancer medicine2026
Real-World Comparison of Dual Checkpoint Blockade and Immunotherapy Plus TKIs in Metastatic RCC.
Observational study in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-World Comparison of Dual Checkpoint Blockade and Immunotherapy Plus TKIs in Metastatic RCC.Cancer medicine · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare differences in clinical outcomes between dual immune checkpoint blockade and immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in routine clinical practice. PATIENTS AND
methodsRetrospective multicenter cohort study including 311 patients with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or poor-risk metastatic RCC who received first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapy between 2018 and 2023. Patients were treated with either ICI + ICI or ICI + TKI. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to reduce baseline imbalances. Progression-free survival (PFS), second progression-free survival (PFS2), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) were analyzed using weighted survival models.
resultsAfter adjustment, ICI + TKI was associated with a trend toward longer PFS compared with ICI + ICI (median 28.7 vs. 16.6 months, HR 0.69, p = 0.050). No significant differences were observed in PFS2 (median 46.6 vs. 35.5 months, HR 0.84, p = 0.436) or OS (median 57.4 vs. 57.0 months, HR 1.01, p = 0.965). ORR (56.5% vs. 52.2%, p = 0.473) and DOR (median 54.6 vs. 44.9 months, HR 0.83, p = 0.502) were comparable. Subgroup analysis suggested more noticeable PFS benefit with ICI + TKI in intermediate-risk patients and those without central nervous system or bone metastases, whereas OS was similar across all subgroups. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events was comparable between groups.
conclusionIn this real-world cohort, TKI-containing combinations were associated with improved initial disease control, whereas no statistically significant difference in long-term survival was observed between treatment strategies. Given the retrospective design and potential for residual confounding despite IPTW adjustment, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Treatment selection should therefore be individualized according to therapeutic priorities, such as the need for initial tumor control versus the expectation of sustained immune-mediated benefit.
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.