ArticleESMO open2026
Outcomes of immune-checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: results from a global real-world evidence study.
Article in ESMO open, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), with or without tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), represent the backbone first-line treatment of patients (pts) with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Although multiple ICI-based regimens are approved in the metastatic setting, limited data exist on the efficacy of ICI rechallenge, particularly in relation to the timing and efficacy of rechallenge initiation. PATIENTS AND
methodsUsing the TriNetX research database, we conducted a large-scale, retrospective analysis of pts with mccRCC treated with ≥2 lines of ICI-based therapy across major international centers (2016-2024). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) following ICI rechallenge. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to adjust for age, sex, disease stage, metastatic sites, prior ICI type, and treatment sequencing strategy.
resultsAmong 6737 pts with mccRCC, 288 (4.3%) received ≥2 lines of ICI. Median age was 63.8 years. The most common first-line regimens were nivolumab (N) + cabozantinib (44.1%), N + ipilimumab (26.5%), pembrolizumab (P) + axitinib (20%), and P + lenvatinib (8.4%). ICI rechallenge sequences were: N>N (47.6%), P>P (22.2%), N>P (17%), and P>N (13.2%). Median duration of prior ICI therapy was 19.5 months, and the median interval between ICI therapies was 8.91 months. After a median follow-up of 19.3 months, median OS following ICI rechallenge was 33.2 months, and median PFS was 8.5 months. Rechallenge ≥6 months after prior ICI was associated with improved PFS (8.8 versus 5.2 months) and OS (34.9 versus 19.4 months; P = 0.014). PSM confirmed that the OS benefit was independent of covariates (P = 0.03).
conclusionsOur results outline opportunities for optimal ICI rechallenge, regardless of the prior immunotherapy administered. Improved outcomes with longer intervals (≥6 months) between treatments suggest timing is a key driver of efficacy and should be investigated in prospective trials as a surrogate marker of likely treatment response.
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.