SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Effectiveness of systemic treatments for advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) represents a heterogeneous group of malignancies with substantial differences in morphology, genetic profiles, clinical behavior, and prognosis. Optimal treatment for nccRCC remains unclear, largely extrapolated from evidence available for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study aimed to compare the efficacy of current mainstream drug treatments for nccRCC to provide clinical treatment guidance for advanced cases. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for trials published up to January 2, 2024, including controlled and single-arm trials. Primary outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: We selected six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs). These trials included four first-line and two second-line studies, with a total of 398 advanced nccRCC patients. Pooled results showed that VEGFR-TKIs significantly improved PFS compared to mTORi in first-line treatment (relative risk [RR] = 1.387; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.85; p = 0.026). In a single-arm meta-analysis, we included 22 VEGFR-TKI trials, three mTORi trials, 12 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies, five chemotherapy trials, and 10 combination therapy trials. The pooled ORR ranged from 6% (95% CI: 0-16%) to 36% (95% CI: 27-44%), and the pooled DCR ranged from 54% (95% CI: 50-58%) to 81% (95% CI: 70-91%). Subgroup analysis of ICI showed a higher ORR in the PD-L1 positive group compared to the PD-L1 negative group (RR = 3.044; 95% CI: 1.623-5.709; p = 0.001). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that VEGFR-TKIs improve PFS in first-line treatment compared to mTORi. The single-arm meta-analysis suggest that combination therapies with different mechanisms result in better ORR and DCR. Furthermore, PD-L1 positive patients showed significantly better therapeutic responses with ICI treatment than PD-L1 negative patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.