Abstract
Background: Several novel immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments exhibited promising survival benefits for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), yet there is no current guidance regarding the optimum first-line regimen. We performed this network-meta analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of all available treatments for mRCC. Methods: A systematic search of literature was conducted in April 2019, and the analysis was done on a Bayesian fixed-effect model. Results: 25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 13,010 patients were included in this study. The results showed that for overall survival, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.38-0.73) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.50-0.79) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably (68%) to be the best choice. For progression-free survival, cabozantinib (HR: 0.66; 95% CrI: 0.46-0.94), pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR: 0.69; 95% CrI: 0.57-0.84), avelumab plus axitinib (HR: 0.69; 95% CrI: 0.56-0.85), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR: 0.82; 95% CrI: 0.68-0.99), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR: 0.86; 95% CrI: 0.74-0.99) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and cabozantinib was likely (43%) to be the preferred options. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR: 0.50; 95% CrI: 0.28-0.84), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (OR: 0.56; 95% CrI: 0.36-0.83) were associated with significantly lower rate of high-grade adverse events than sunitinib. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that pembrolizumab plus axitinib might be the best treatment for mRCC, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab has the most favorable balance between efficacy and acceptability, and may provide new guidance to make treatment decisions. Funding Statement: This research was supported by the Henan Provincial Scientific and Technological Research Project (Grant No. 192102310036). Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was performed based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
