Therapeutic effects and associated adverse events of first-line treatments of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): a meta-analysis
International Urology and Nephrology, ISSN: 1573-2584, Vol: 47, Issue: 4, Page: 617-624
2015
- 7Citations
- 22Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations7
- Citation Indexes6
- CrossRef6
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures22
- Readers22
- 22
Article Description
Purpose: To compare the therapeutic effects and adverse events (AE) of current first-line treatments of advanced RCC, including sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, and the combination of bevacizumab and IFN-α. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of the five treatments among patients with advanced RCC. The data of progressive disease, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), grade 3/4 AE, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted to assess therapeutic effects, toxicity, and prognosis, respectively. Results: Two studies that assessed the combination of bevacizumab with IFN α (n = 1381), one sunitinib (n = 750), one sorafenib (n = 189) and one temsirolimus (n = 416) were included. Sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus (R = 0.35, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.26–0.48, P < 0.01), and the combination of bevacizumab with IFN (R = 0.64, 95 % CI 0.42–0.99, P = 0.04) were more effective in controlling tumor progression than IFN. Sorafenib, sunitinib, and temsirolimus do not own advantage in ORR compared with IFN (R = 2.06, 95 % CI 0.53–7.95, P = 0.30), but combination of bevacizumab with IFN showed better results in ORR than IFN (R = 2.56, 95 % CI 1.91–3.42, P < 0.01). Sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus (R = 2.90, 95 % CI 2.23–3.78, P < 0.01), and combination of bevacizumab with IFN (R = 2.14, 95 % CI 1.65–2.78, P < 0.01) were more effective than IFN in DCR. Sorafenib, sunitinib, and temsirolimus had similar rate of grade 3/4 AE as IFN (R = 1.21, 95 % CI 0.96–1.51, P = 0.10). Combined use of bevacizumab and IFN is associated with higher frequency of the AE (R = 2.09, 95 % CI 1.66–2.63, P < 0.01). Sorafenib and sunitinib had similar median PFS (R = 0.67, 95 % CI 0.42–1.08, P = 0.10); temsirolimus had longer median OS (R = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.67–1.00, P = 0.049) as IFN. Combined use of bevacizumab and IFN had longer median PFS (R = 0.68, 95 % CI 0.60–0.76, P < 0.01) and OS (R = 0.86, 95 % CI 0.76–0.97, P = 0.01) than IFN. Conclusion: Sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, and the combination of bevacizumab with IFN are more effective in stabilizing disease. Combined use of bevacizumab and IFN is better than sorafenib, sunitinib, and temsirolimus in ORR, PFS, and OS, but associated with higher level of AE.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84939982792&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-0932-1; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25686740; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11255-015-0932-1; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-0932-1; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11255-015-0932-1
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know