Evidence Hub

Impact of metformin on outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma: A large-scale retrospective analysis

Harshitha Popuri, Mariah Black, M. Eysha, Bayan Khasawneh, M. Elchouemi, Islam H. Zaki, Y. Youssef, Manar Hamed et al.

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2026

12,271 participants

Abstract

e16558

Background:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a mainstay in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Metformin, a commonly used biguanide for type 2 diabetes, has demonstrated anti-tumor and immunomodulatory effects that may enhance ICI efficacy. However, the clinical impact of concurrent metformin use on outcomes in patients with RCC treated with ICIs remains unclear.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network, a database of electronic medical records from 158 healthcare organizations. We identified patients with RCC using ICD-10-CM C64 who were initiated on ICIs ( nivolumab, pembrolizumab and avelumab) and were divided into two cohorts: those receiving concurrent metformin and those who were not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed in 1:1 ratio to balance the cohorts for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) over a 3-year follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including pneumonitis, colitis, thyroiditis, and skin eruptions.

Results:

A total of 12,271 patients with RCC treated with ICIs were identified: 1,321 in the Metformin cohort and 10,950 in non-metformin cohort. After 1:1 PSM, two well-balanced cohorts of 1,132 patients each were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were statistically similar between both cohorts (p > 0.05; Table…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 12,271 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free