CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,791Renal cell carcinoma treatmentCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

Open access
Choueiri, Toni K., Powles, Thomas, Burotto, Mauricio, Escudier, Bernard, Bourlon, Maria T., Zurawski, Bogdan, Oyervides Juárez, Victor M., Hsieh, James J., Basso, Umberto, Shah, Amishi Y., Suárez, Cristina, Hamzaj, Alketa, Goh, Jeffrey C., Barrios, Carlos, Richardet, Martin, Porta, Camillo, Kowalyszyn, Rubén, Feregrino, Juan P., Żołnierek, Jakub, Pook, David, Kessler, Elizabeth R., Tomita, Yoshihiko, Mizuno, Ryuichi, Bedke, Jens, Zhang, Joshua, Maurer, Matthew A., Simsek, Burcin, Ejzykowicz, Flavia, Schwab, Gisela M., Apolo, Andrea B., Motzer, Robert J.·2021·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa2026982PMC PMC8436591
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa2026982

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Choueiri, T. K., Powles, T., Burotto, M., Escudier, B., Bourlon, M. T., Zurawski, B., Oyervides Juárez, V. M., Hsieh, J. J., Basso, U., Shah, A. Y., Suárez, C., Hamzaj, A., Goh, J. C., Barrios, C., Richardet, M., Porta, C., Kowalyszyn, R., Feregrino, J. P., Żołnierek, J., Pook, D., Kessler, E. R., Tomita, Y., Mizuno, R., Bedke, J., Zhang, J., Maurer, M. A., Simsek, B., Ejzykowicz, F., Schwab, G. M., Apolo, A. B., & Motzer, R. J.
Affiliations
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • From the Department of Medical Oncology, Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston (T.K.C.); the Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Royal Free National Health Service Trust, London (T.P.); the Bradford Hill Clinical Research Center, Santiago, Chile (M.B.); the Department of Medical Oncology,...
ORCID
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2021-03-04
Volume
384
Issue
9
Pages
829-841
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejmoa2026982
PMC
PMC8436591
OpenAlex
W3134949580
Cited by
1,791
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 224 · 2025: 281 · 2024: 322 · 2023: 353 · 2022: 407 · 2021: 204
FWCI
209.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.nejmgroup.org/legal/terms-of-use.htm (vor)
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  • Ipsen Pharma
  • ONO Pharmaceutical Company Ltd.
  • Exelixis Inc.
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd.
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Renal cell carcinoma treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Keywords
nivolumab, cabozantinib, sunitinib, advanced renal cell carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, combination therapy, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response, health-related quality of life, adverse events, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, first-line therapy, subgroup analysis, PD-1
MeSH terms
Sunitinib, Nivolumab, Progression-Free Survival, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anilides, Antineoplastic Agents, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carcinoma, Renal Cell, Female, Humans, Kidney Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Pyridines, Quality of Life, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Receptor Protein-Tyrosine Kinases, Intention to Treat Analysis, B7-H1 Antigen

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review