MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412400203 · doi:10.1200/op-25-00089

Long-Term Performance of Prognostic Models for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Improved Survival With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

2025· article· en· W4412400203 on OpenAlexaff
Charlene Mantia, Opeyemi A. Jegede, David F. McDermott, Daniel Y.C. Heng, Wanling Xie, Toni K. Choueiri, Michael B. Atkins, Meredith M. Regan

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSunitinibIpilimumabNivolumabMedicineRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineOncologyKidney cancerClear cell renal cell carcinomaCancerClinical endpointConcordanceImmunotherapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In the era of prolonged survival for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) with standard-of-care first-line therapy now including immune checkpoint inhibitor, re-evaluation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic models is overdue. METHODS: Data from 1,052 patients with aRCC treated on the CheckMate-214 phase III randomized trial with first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab or sunitinib were analyzed after minimum 5 years of follow-up. The end point was overall survival (OS). To investigate long-term prognostication with each treatment approach, model performance based upon continuous risk score was assessed in a time-dependent manner of increasing 6-month intervals and globally over full follow-up, using discrimination concordance (c)-indices. RESULTS: With time-dependent assessment, the IMDC and MSKCC models maintained their performance over approximately 2 years from sunitinib initiation (c ≥0.69 through 18-24 months); thereafter, the models' performances with long-term OS attenuated. Over full follow-up, the models' discrimination was c = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.658 to 0.664) and c = 0.64 (95% CI, 0.640 to 0.645), respectively, for the sunitinib group. After nivolumab + ipilimumab initiation, the IMDC and MSKCC models' global discrimination was c = 0.63 (95% CI, 0.628 to 0.634) and c = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.607 to 0.614), respectively. The models' performances were attenuated in the short term (c ranging 0.64-0.69 through 18-24 months) and the long term. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis of the CheckMate-214 trial, in which nivolumab + ipilimumab improved survival versus sunitinib with 48% and 37% of patients, respectively, surviving beyond 5 years, confirmed the strength of the models' prognostication for the early years after first-line sunitinib initiation continuing to stratify three prognostic categories, but also diminished discrimination among long-term survivors and with initiation of nivolumab + ipilimumab. As novel treatments are developed and patients with aRCC live longer, new models to estimate long-term prognosis are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207