Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38546942›Full record

ArticleTargeted oncology2024

Durable Response to Enfortumab Vedotin Compared to Re-challenging Chemotherapy in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Taizo Uchimoto, Shuya Tsuchida, Kazumasa Komura, Wataru Fukuokaya, Takahiro Adachi, Yosuke Hirasawa, Takeshi Hashimoto, Atsuhiko Yoshizawa, Masanobu Saruta, Mamoru Hashimoto and 22 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Targeted oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Taizo Uchimoto *Department of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4157-1929
Shuya Tsuchida *Department of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Kazumasa KomuraDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan. kazumasa.komura@ompu.ac.jp.
Wataru FukuokayaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Takahiro AdachiDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1 Nishi-shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0023, Japan.
Yosuke HirasawaDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1 Nishi-shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0023, Japan.
Takeshi HashimotoDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1 Nishi-shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0023, Japan.
Atsuhiko YoshizawaDepartment of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Masanobu SarutaDepartment of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Mamoru HashimotoDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, 377-2, Oono-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan.
Takuya HigashioDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Takuya MatsudaDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Kazuki NishimuraDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Takuya TsujinoDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Ko NakamuraDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Tatsuo FukushimaDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Kyosuke NishioDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Shutaro YamamotoDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Kosuke IwataniDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Fumihiko UrabeDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Takafumi YanagisawaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Shunsuke TsudukiDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Kiyoshi TakaharaDepartment of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Teruo InamotoDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Jun MikiDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Kazutoshi FujitaDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, 377-2, Oono-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan.
Takahiro KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8, Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan. tkimura0809@gmail.com.
Yoshio OhnoDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1 Nishi-shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0023, Japan.
Ryoichi ShirokiDepartment of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Hirotsugu UemuraDepartment of Urology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, 377-2, Oono-higashi, Osakasayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan.
Haruhito AzumaDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Osaka University of Pharmaceutical Sciences · JPJikei University School of Medicine · JPFujita Health University Hospital · JPTokyo Medical University · JPKindai University · JP

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 21H03070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnfortumab vedotin (EV), an antibody-drug conjugate targeting Nectin-4, has been used for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after progressing on checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Re-challenging chemotherapy with platinum agents and continuing CPIs beyond progressive disease (PD) have often been chosen following PD on CPIs, and several studies indicate favorable treatment effects of re-challenging chemotherapy. There is little evidence for comparing EV and re-challenging chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice.

objectiveThe aim was to reveal the real-world treatment outcomes of EV, re-challenging chemotherapy, and continuing CPIs beyond PD in mUC patients. PATIENTS AND

methodsA multi-institutional dataset of 350 mUC patients treated with CPIs was utilized. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) were evaluated to compare the treatment arms.

resultsOne hundred and nine mUC patients were treated with EV with a median follow-up of 6.4 months. The ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were 48% and 70%, respectively. The OS from PD on pembrolizumab exhibited significant differences among the three groups, with a median OS of 8, 14, and 29 months in continuing pembrolizumab beyond PD, re-challenging chemotherapy, and EV, respectively. When comparing the survival outcomes from the initiation of the treatment, there is neither a difference in OS (p = 0.124), PFS (p = 0.936), nor ORR (p = 0.816) between EV and re-challenging chemotherapy. Notably, the DOR in patients who achieved an objective response was significantly longer in the EV group than the re-challenging chemotherapy group (a median of 11 and 5 months, p = 0.049). For OS, the difference was not statistically significant (27 and 11 months in EV and re-challenging chemotherapy, respectively: p = 0.05).

conclusionsA superior effect of EV on patient survival compared to re-challenging chemotherapy and continuing pembrolizumab beyond PD was observed in our real-world analysis, which is attributed to the durable DOR in EV treatment despite the similar ORR to re-challenging chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Transitional CellFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisRetrospective StudiesUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonalenfortumab vedotinImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID38546942
OpenAlexW4393261666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.