Summary: A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: In [patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases (CAD)] is [hybrid revascularization (HCR)] equal to [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] in regard to [mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and target vessel revascularization (TVR)]? Three-hundred and fifty-five papers were found using the reported search, of which 8 represented the best evidence to answer the question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The studies included 4 observational studies, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 meta-analysis. The meta-analysis consisted of predominantly observational data with 1 randomized controlled trial and suggested non-significant differences in all major clinical outcomes. The observational studies generally cited benefit towards hybrid revascularization on the basis of equivalent major clinical outcomes rates compared to coronary artery bypass grafting, yet favourable in-hospital outcomes. One randomized controlled trial provided robust evidence of equivalent 5-year outcomes; however, the others were insufficiently powered for an effective comparison. There is a paucity of robustly designed studies to answer our clinical question effectively, given hybrid procedures are not routine in clinical practice. On the basis of mostly observational and small randomized cohorts with relatively short follow-up intervals, we conclude that current evidence suggests similar mid-term rates of major clinical outcomes after hybrid revascularization and coronary artery bypass grafting. However, without longer-term follow-up, the comparison of the two techniques, particularly relating to repeat revascularization, is still very much uncertain.

Background/Objectives: Most patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progress on first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). Subsequent vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is standard. Due to the rapid evolution in treatment landscape, data directly comparing outcomes of VEGF-TKI following ICI versus VEGF-TKI alone are limited. This scoping review aimed to explore whether VEGF-TKI following prior ICI is associated with improved outcome, potentially reflecting a treatment sequence effect. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically to identify phase 2/3 prospective clinical trials that investigated VEGF-TKI in patients who had progressed after ≥1 therapy published from 2004. Included studies were summarised by prior therapy and reported outcomes. Data from subgroups/arms were extracted and weighted overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) calculated for patients pretreated with VEGF-TKI versus ICI. An exploratory, hypothesis generating analysis was performed comparing outcomes between patients who received prior VEGF-TKI only or ICI-based therapy. Results: In total, 17 clinical trials were included: 2538 patients had prior VEGF-TKI (15 subgroups/arms) and 724 prior ICI-based therapy (11 subgroups/arms). In prior VEGF-TKI, weighted mORR was 8% (IQR 6–16%) versus 28% (IQR 20–41%) post-ICI. Weighted mPFS was 3.9 m (IQR 3.6–5.4) with prior VEGF-TKI versus 8.3 m (IQR 7.4–10.3) in prior ICI group. Weighted mOS was 15.2 m (IQR 11.1–16.6) versus 22.1 m (IQR 10.9–22.1) with prior ICI. Conclusions: Improved outcomes in ICI pretreated population in this exploratory analysis suggests ongoing biological benefit of ICI therapy. As prospective 2L randomised studies are not feasible, we conclude that VEGF therapy in pretreated mRCC is at least as good, if not better, since the introduction of 1st line ICI.