Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
493 Background: PPIs are potent inhibitors of gastric acid secretion and can affect the bioavailability of orally administered cancer targeting therapies, such as vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs). Smaller preclinical and clinical studies have attempted to assess the interaction between VEGF-TKIs and PPIs in patients with advanced cancers; however, these studies are limited and larger analyses from rigorous datasets have been lacking. We investigate the impact of PPI use on survival in patients with mRCC treated with oral VEGF-TKIs. Methods: A pooled analysis of mRCC patients treated on phase II and III clinical trials was conducted. The primary outcome was to assess overall survival (OS) between PPI users, defined as patients receiving a PPI at baseline, compared to non-PPI users. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR), and adverse events. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression adjusted for several risk factors and the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Our cohort consisted of 2,188 patients treated with sunitinib (n = 952), axitinib (n = 626), or sorafenib (n = 610), of whom 120 were PPI users. Overall, PPI users demonstrated similar OS compared to non-PPI users (median 24.1 vs. 21.3 months, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.051, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.769-1.438, p = 0.754). Similarly, PFS (5.5 vs. 8.0 months, aHR 1.016, 95% CI 0.793-1.301, p = 0.902) and ORR (23.3% versus 27.4%, p = 0.344) were not different between PPI users and non-users. These findings were consistent across International mRCC Database Consortium risk groups and by line of therapy. Adverse events were also similar between both groups. Conclusions: In this analysis, we demonstrate that PPI use does not appear to negatively impact the efficacy of VEGF-TKIs in mRCC patients treated in the targeted therapy era. Given the current landscape expanding to include more self-administered treatments, documentation of concomitant medications, and patient education on potential drug interactions are critical for optimizing the utilization of oral cancer targeting therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".