Comparative efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

4Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: With the advances in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, several novel treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients have recently emerged. The present study explored the optimal first-line immunotherapy for mRCC through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of the latest research data. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting abstracts, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to July 2020 to identify any randomized controlled trials related to immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of mRCC. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, and the secondary outcomes were overall survival and grade 3–4 adverse events. Results: The network meta-analysis included 4,049 patients from 5 randomized controlled trials. Avelumab plus axitinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib were the best treatment options in terms of progression-free survival. For overall survival, pembrolizumab plus axitinib had a 77.89% probability of being the preferred treatment. For adverse events, there was an 89.21% probability that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was the regimen with the worst side effects. Conclusions: Through a meta-analysis of the latest available first-line immunotherapy progression-free survival and overall survival data for mRCC, this study found that pembrolizumab plus axitinib might be the best immunotherapy option for first-line treatment. However, attention should be paid to the potential adverse events of this regimen.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liu, Z., Chen, Y., Wei, Z., He, Y., Wang, J., Mu, X., … Peng, X. (2021). Comparative efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Annals of Palliative Medicine, 10(3), 2805–2814. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-1884

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free