Role of Cytokine Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Targeted Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting in the late 1980s, cytokines were considered the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (rcc) because of a lack of improved survival with either chemotherapy or hormonal therapy alone. The cytokine agents interferon alfa (IFNalpha) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) have been the most evaluated, but a low overall response rate and a marginal survival advantage, coupled with significant toxicity, make these therapies less than ideal. Although complete tumour responses have occasionally been seen with high-dose il-2, this therapy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and its approval has been based on limited nonrandomized evidence. Newer anti-angiogenesis agents have been evaluated as single agents and in combination with INFalpha, and these are now considered the standard of care for most patients with rcc. However, cytokines may still occasionally be recommended when angiogenesis inhibitors are not available or are contraindicated. In the present paper, we discuss the evidence for the use of cytokine therapy in the setting of pre- and post-targeted therapy for RCC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".