Real-World Oncological Outcomes of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) is the only approved combination of two immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Inadequate evidence of treatment with NIVO + IPI has been reported in Japanese cohorts. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of NIVO + IPI treatment. Patients with mRCC who received NIVO + IPI at nine Japanese facilities between August 2018 and March 2023 were enrolled in this study. The primary endpoint in this study was the assessment of oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC who received NIVO + IPI. Eighty-four patients with mRCC were enrolled. The median follow-up period was 18.3 months, and median progression-free and overall survival were 13.3 and 50.9 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 47.6%, and the disease control rate was 78.6%. To our knowledge, this is the largest study that evaluates Japanese patients with mRCC receiving NIVO + IPI treatment. In this study, the real-world oncological outcomes after NIVO + IPI treatment were comparable to those in the CheckMate 214 study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".