SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
First-line immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and assess their cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials comparing ICI-targeted combinations versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced RCC were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among different regimens. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank treatment efficacy. Based on the NMA results, a partitioned survival model was developed for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Using the sunitinib arm from the CheckMate 9ER trial as the reference, parametric survival models were fitted to extrapolate survival outcomes over a 20-year time horizon. HRs from the NMA were applied to derive survival curves for other interventions. The model cycle length was 6 weeks. Costs included drug acquisition, follow-up, adverse event management, subsequent therapy, and palliative care. Utility values were sourced from published literature. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated against a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $40,332.35 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Seven trials involving 4,973 patients were included. The NMA showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib ranked highest for PFS, whereas toripalimab plus axitinib ranked highest for OS. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that toripalimab plus axitinib yielded the greatest gains in life-years and QALYs, with the lowest ICER of $62,204.37 among all evaluated strategies. However, all regimens exceeded the WTP threshold of $40,332.35 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that while toripalimab plus axitinib is the most efficacious first-line regimen for aRCC and offers the lowest ICER, none of the evaluated regimens are economically viable from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system at the WTP threshold of $40,332.35 per QALY. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261503119, identifier CRD420261503119.
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.