-
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Paragangliomas (PGLs) are neuroendocrine neoplasms arising from chromaffin cells of sympathetic or parasympathetic paraganglia. Systemic therapies have been used only in...
BACKGROUND
Paragangliomas (PGLs) are neuroendocrine neoplasms arising from chromaffin cells of sympathetic or parasympathetic paraganglia. Systemic therapies have been used only in metastatic PGLs. Antiangiogenic agents, such as sunitinib, could be a viable therapeutic choice in the subgroup of patients with -positive PGLs. We describe the case of a man with Familial Paraganglioma Syndrome type 1 (FPGL) related to a novel mutation in gene treated with sunitinib. Furthermore, we performed a systematic review of the literature aimed to address the following question: is sunitinib treatment effective in patients with advanced/progressive/metastatic PGL?
METHODS
We performed a data search using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus between April 2019 and September 2020. We included studies reporting data on clinical or biological characteristics, or clinical outcomes of patients with PGLs treated with sunitinib.
RESULTS
The search leaded to the selection of 25 publications. Data from case reports and case series showed that disease control rate (DCR = stable disease + partial response + complete response) was achieved in 34.7% of cases under sunitinib treatment. In 39% of patients DCR was followed by progressive disease (PD) or tumor relapse, 26.1% patients showed PD. Data from clinical trials showed that DCR was 83%, and the median progression free survival was 13.4 months.
DISCUSSION
Data from the present literature review suggested that sunitinib could be a viable therapeutic option in advanced/progressive/metastatic inoperable PGLs. However, further trials on the efficacy of sunitinib in FPGL and sporadic PGL are needed.
PubMed: 34221997
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.677983 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy and sunitinib monotherapy have been...
BACKGROUND
Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy and sunitinib monotherapy have been widely applied to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), effectiveness and safety data are still lacking. To optimize clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials to characterize the efficacy and the risk of adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with ICIs plus anti-VEGF therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We used PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before March 27, 2021. The efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of AEs were calculated in the safety analysis.
RESULTS
Six RCTs involving 4,227 patients were identified after a systematic search. For OS, ICI and anti-VEGF combination therapy decreased mortality approximately 30% in the intention-to-treat population (ITT) (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.87), but there was no statistical difference in patients evaluated as "favorable" by the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria compared with monotherapy (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.55-1.46, = 0.66). In terms of PFS, the progression risk for all participants declined 35% (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50-0.83) and patients evaluated as "poor" by IMDC benefited further (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36-0.58). No evident divergence was found in age and sex subgroups. The RRs of all-grade hypertension, arthralgia, rash, proteinuria, high-grade (grades 3-5) arthralgia, and proteinuria developed after combination therapy were increased compared with sunitinib. The risk of high-grade hypertension and rash showed no statistical difference. However, the risk of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), stomatitis, and dysgeusia decreased in combination therapy groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with sunitinib, OS, PFS, and ORR were significantly improved in patients receiving ICI and anti-VEGF combination therapy at the expense of increased specific AEs. More attention should be paid to individualized application of these combination therapies to achieve the best benefit-risk ratio in the clinic.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://inplasy.com/] INPLASY: 202130104.
PubMed: 34722290
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.739263 -
Targeted Oncology Aug 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have stringent inclusion criteria and may not fully represent patients seen in everyday clinical practice. Real-world data (RWD) can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have stringent inclusion criteria and may not fully represent patients seen in everyday clinical practice. Real-world data (RWD) can provide supportive evidence for the effectiveness of medical interventions in more heterogeneous populations than RCTs. Sunitinib is a widely used first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
OBJECTIVE
This is the first comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of sunitinib using the novel approach of combining RCTs and RWD.
METHODS
RCTs and RWD studies published between 2000 and 2017 were identified from PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Eligible studies contained a cohort of ≥ 50 adult patients with mRCC receiving first-line sunitinib treatment. The meta-analysis combined RWD and RCT treatment groups, adjusting for data type (RCT or RWD). Recorded outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and objective response rate (ORR). Publication bias was assessed via review of funnel plots for each outcome measure. A random effects model to account for study heterogeneity was applied to each endpoint. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the overall estimates.
RESULTS
Of the 3611 studies identified through medical database searches, 22 (15 RWD studies, 7 RCTs) met eligibility criteria and were analyzed. mPFS (18 studies), mOS (19 studies), and ORR (15 studies) were reported for aggregate measures based on 4815, 5321, and 4183 patients, respectively. Reported mPFS (RWD, 7.5-11.0 months; RCTs, 5.6-15.1 months) and ORR data (RWD, 14.0-34.6%; RCTs, 18.8-46.9%) were consistent with the overall confidence estimates (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 9.3 (8.6-10.2) months and 27.9% (24.2-32.0), respectively. Reported mOS showed greater variation in RWD (6.8-33.2 months) compared with RCTs (21.8-31.5 months), with an overall confidence estimate (95% CI) of 23.0 (19.2-27.6) months. Inspection of funnel plots and sensitivity analyses indicated that there was no publication bias for any efficacy endpoint. Sensitivity analyses showed no evidence of lack of robustness for mPFS, mOS, or ORR. Interpretation of these results is limited by differences in trial design, cohort characteristics, and missing data.
CONCLUSIONS
This novel, comprehensive meta-analysis validates sunitinib as an effective first-line treatment for patients with mRCC in both RCTs and everyday clinical practice. The methodology provides a framework for future analyses combining data from RCTs and RWD.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sunitinib
PubMed: 31301015
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-019-00653-5 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020The standard sunitinib schedule to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (4/2). However, some studies revealed intolerable adverse...
A 2/1 Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Provides Superior Antitumor Effectiveness and Less Toxicity Than a 4/2 Schedule for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The standard sunitinib schedule to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (4/2). However, some studies revealed intolerable adverse events (AEs) in patients on this schedule. An alternative schedule, 2 weeks on/1 week off (2/1), may overcome this issue. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness and toxicity between the 2/1 and 4/2 sunitinib dosing schedules. We acquired relevant studies by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Our main endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and AEs. We identified 9 medium- and high-quality studies. Both schedules were effective for mRCC, with comparable OS and similar ORR. However, the 2/1 schedule had better PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.99, = 0.04), higher DCR [risk rate (RR) = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01-1.47, = 0.04] and fewer dosage interruptions (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43-0.84, = 0.003). Additionally, the 2/1 schedule elicited fewer specific severe AEs, including thrombocytopenia/platelet disorder, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and fatigue. In our subanalysis, PFS was better among East Asians using the 2/1 schedule than among other populations (HR= 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58-0.98, = 0.03), and patients administered an initial dosage of 50 mg/d on the 2/1 schedule had superior PFS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.97, = 0.03) than those others. These findings suggest that the 2/1 schedule is more suitable for mRCC than 4/2, due to superior PFS, better DCR and fewer AEs. Nevertheless, more large-scale studies with good quality are needed.
PubMed: 32211333
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00313 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2022Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a common malignancy with approximately 30% of cases diagnosed at the advanced or metastatic stage. While single-agent vascular endothelial... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a common malignancy with approximately 30% of cases diagnosed at the advanced or metastatic stage. While single-agent vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy has been a mainstay of treatment, data from multiple phase III trials assessing first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations have demonstrated a significant survival benefit.
METHODS
A systematic search of the published and presented literature was performed to identify phase III trials assessing ICI combination regimens in RCC using search terms 'immune checkpoint inhibitors' AND 'renal cell carcinoma,' AND 'advanced'.
RESULTS
Six phase III trials showed significant benefits for ICI combinations compared with sunitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly improved overall survival [OS; median, 47.0 26.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58-0.81, < 0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS; median 11.6 8.3 months, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61-0.87, = 0.0004) in International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate and poor-risk patients. OS was also significantly improved for ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations regardless of risk, including pembrolizumab plus either axitinib (HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.88, < 0.001) or lenvatinib (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.49-0.88, = 0.005) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.50-0.87, = 0.003). No new safety signals were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Phase III first-line trials of ICI combinations showed survival benefits compared with a control arm of sunitinib. Global access to these combinations should be made available to patients with advanced RCC.
PubMed: 35782749
DOI: 10.1177/17588359221108685 -
Cureus Jul 2022Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are soft-tissue sarcomas that can occur anywhere in the digestive tract, with the stomach and small intestine being the most... (Review)
Review
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are soft-tissue sarcomas that can occur anywhere in the digestive tract, with the stomach and small intestine being the most common locations. Because no imaging modalities diagnose GIST unequivocally, histological and immunohistochemical confirmation is usually required. Most GISTs are discovered by chance; hence, determining this condition's actual frequency can be challenging. Since diagnosing the tumor could be difficult, including GIST in the differential diagnosis is crucial. The objective of this review is to explore the multiple treatment options for this tumor and provide clinicians with more information on the evolving treatment modalities, which in the future could be a possible solution to cure GIST ultimately. After exploring several studies, the authors conclude that early detection is critical since the treatment depends on the tumor size, mitotic rate, and location. Medical management using targeted therapy approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) include tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib. Surgical resection of the tumor is also done in cases with localized tumors. Standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy are not commonly used to treat GIST patients. However, radiotherapy may be used as a palliative therapy to ease pain (such as bone pain) or control bleeding. Additional research is needed to establish potential therapeutic targets that will result in higher and longer-term response rates.
PubMed: 35847170
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26848 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2022Sunitinib has a narrow therapeutic window, with considerable differences between patients. Dosing based on pharmacokinetics (PK) may help overcome some of those issues....
BACKGROUND
Sunitinib has a narrow therapeutic window, with considerable differences between patients. Dosing based on pharmacokinetics (PK) may help overcome some of those issues. This study aims to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of PK-guided individualized treatment of sunitinib with its standard dose in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant values were used to provide information for the decision analysis model. Utility data were derived from published studies, and costs were obtained from the perspective of payers in China and the United States. A Markov model was established to evaluate the associated costs and health outcomes for patients. The primary outputs of the model included lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the potential uncertainties of parameters.
RESULTS
Cost-effective analysis showed that the QALY of the PK-guided group increased by 0.83 compared with that in the standard dose group. From the perspective of both countries' health systems, the cost of PK-guided dose was lower than that of standard dose. Hence, PK-guided treatment was the dominant strategy. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of these results.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of currently available data, PK-guided sunitinib treatment may be a safe, effective, and economical intervention for patients with mRCC.
PubMed: 35371296
DOI: 10.1177/17588359221085212 -
Cancers Jan 2021Several new therapies have been approved to treat advanced gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) in the last twenty years. In this systematic... (Review)
Review
Several new therapies have been approved to treat advanced gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) in the last twenty years. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more therapies for unresectable GEP-NENs. Network metanalysis was used to overcome the multiarm problem. For each arm, we described the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival and grade 3-4 of toxicity. We included nine studies involving a total of 2362 patients and 5 intervention arms: SSA alone, two IFN-α plus SSA, two Everolimus alone, one Everolimus plus SSA, one Sunitinib alone, one Lu-Dotatate plus SSA, and one Bevacizumab plus SSA. Lu-Dotatate plus SSA had the highest probability (99.6%) of being associated with the longest PFS. This approach was followed by Sunitinib use (64.5%), IFN-α plus SSA one (53.0%), SSA alone (46.6%), Bevacizumab plus SSA one (45.0%), and Everolimus ± SSA one (33.6%). The placebo administration had the lowest probability of being associated with the longest PFS (7.6%). Placebo or Bevacizumab use had the highest probability of being the safest (73.7% and 76.7%), followed by SSA alone (65.0%), IFN-α plus SSA (52.4%), Lu-Dotatate plus SSA (49.4%), and Sunitinib alone (28.8%). The Everolimus-based approach had the lowest probability of being the safest (3.9%). The best approaches were SSA alone or combined with Lu-Dotatate.
PubMed: 33561087
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13020358 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Indazoles; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 33058158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012796.pub2 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022The aim of this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
METHODS
Studies eligible for the efficacy of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic RCC published before December 2021 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched for (1) patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who received adjuvant postoperative targeted therapy versus those not receiving active treatment; (2) primary endpoint outcomes of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs); and (3) design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) as inclusion criteria. Data on DFS and OS were extracted or recalculated by meta-analysis as hazard ratios (HRs), and AEs were compared using a dominance ratio (OR).
RESULT
This systematic evaluation will provide evidence on the effectiveness and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy in patients with advanced RCC. The results of meta-analysis showed that all of the three adjuvant targeted therapeutic drugs (sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib) did not benefit from the adjuvant targeted therapy for DFS and OS and even increase the incidence of AEs compared to the placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this study was to summarize data on DFS, OS, and AEs in patients with advanced RCC treated with targeted therapies. The evidence provided by this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis will help guide clinical decision-making and provide insight into the future management of patients with advanced RCC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms
PubMed: 35392587
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7341294