ReviewJournal of bone oncology2026
Efficacy of immune-oncology combinations versus sunitinib in patients with bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III trials with long-term follow-up.
Review in Journal of bone 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone metastases occur in approximately one-third of patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and are associated with poor prognosis. Although immune-oncology (IO)-based combinations are the standard first-line treatment, the relative efficacy of IO plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO+TKI) versus dual immunotherapy (IO+IO) in this subgroup remains uncertain. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized trials comparing first-line IO-based combinations with sunitinib in treatment-naïve metastatic ccRCC. Eligible studies reported hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) in patients with baseline bone metastases and had a median follow-up of at least 36 months. The primary analysis pooled IO+TKI trials, whereas the single eligible IO+IO study was analyzed separately. Fixed- and random-effects inverse-variance models were applied. Results: Three phase III trials were included: CLEAR (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib), CheckMate 9ER (nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib), and CheckMate 214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib). IO+TKI significantly improved PFS versus sunitinib (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61; Conclusions: In patients with metastatic ccRCC and bone metastases, IO+TKI combinations were associated with significant improvements in PFS and OS compared with sunitinib, whereas IO+IO did not improve PFS. These findings suggest that treatment strategy may influence outcomes in this high-risk subgroup.
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.