MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405945558 · doi:10.1016/j.euo.2024.12.011

Treatment-free Survival After First-line Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: An International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Analysis

2024· article· en· W4405945558 on OpenAlexaff
Mehul Gupta, Connor Wells, Meredith M. Regan, Wanling Xie, Vishal Navani, Renée Maria Saliby, Naveen S. Basappa, Frede Donskov, Takeshi Yuasa, Kosuke Takemura, Christian Kollmannsberger, Megan Crumbaker, Aly‐Khan A. Lalani, Thomas Powles, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Rana R. McKay, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Toni K. Choueiri, Daniel Y.C. Heng

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreUniversity of AlbertaBC Cancer AgencyAlberta Health ServicesBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaOncologyCarcinomaInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients receiving immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy may experience periods of prolonged disease control without a need for systemic therapy. Treatment-free survival (TFS) is an important measure for this period, but no data are available for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) starting first-line agents. Our aim was to analyze TFS outcomes for patients with mRCC starting first-line therapy. METHODS: We analyzed data for patients with mRCC starting first-line systemic therapy with VEGFR-targeted monotherapy, an ICB + VEGFR combination, or an ICB doublet from February 1, 2014 to February 1, 2023 from the multicenter International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database. We estimated 36-mo TFS as the difference in restricted mean survival time between (1) the time to first-line therapy discontinuation and (2) the time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The study population included 3758 patients receiving either first-line VEGFR monotherapy (n = 2635), an ICB + VEGFR combination (n = 354), or doublet ICB (n = 769) were included. For the IMDC favorable-risk cohort, the 36-mo TFS estimate was 3.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-4.6) for the VEGFR monotherapy group and 3.7 mo (95% CI 0.2-7.2) for the ICB + VEGFR group. For the IMDC intermediate-/poor-risk cohort, TFS was 2.1 mo (95% CI 1.4-2.8) for the VEGFR monotherapy group, 3.7 mo (95% CI 1.0-6.4) for the ICB + VEGFR group, and 5.3 mo (95% CI 3.8-6.8) for ICB doublet group. Limitations include the retrospective design and an inability to quantify time spent with adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our study demonstrates that patients with IMDC intermediate or poor risk treated with ICB doublet therapy experienced longer TFS than those treated with VEGFR monotherapy in the first-line setting. These results emphasize the utility of TFS as an informative endpoint and provide survival estimates to inform decision-making in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic kidney cancer, we compared the survival time free from a second treatment line for different first-line treatment options. The results show that the time free from second-line treatment was longer when first-line treatment was with a combination of two immunotherapy drugs (ipilimumab and nivolumab) in comparison to other treatment options.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207