ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2025
Comparison of the efficacy of enfortumab vedotin and paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antibody-Drug Conjugates for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnfortumab vedotin (EV) is a novel treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) that progresses after platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of EV with that of paclitaxel plus carboplatin therapy (TC), which was commonly used as late-line therapy.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with mUC who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy. Patients were classified into two groups: those who were initiated on EV (EV group) and those who received TC as the next-line treatment (TC group). Therapeutic efficacy and adverse events (AEs) were investigated.
resultsA total of 55 patients were included in this study (20 in the TC group and 35 in the EV group). The EV group had significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.0013) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0279) than the TC group. The most frequent AEs were neutropenia (70.0%), febrile neutropenia (20.0%), and peripheral neuropathy (20.0%) in the TC group and pruritus (45.7%) and maculopapular rash (37.1%) in the EV group. Patients who progressed after EV administration were classified into two groups: those who received TC (the TC group) and those who were shifted to best supportive care (the BSC group). The TC group had significantly better OS (p = 0.0084).
conclusionsEV was associated with significantly better PFS and OS than TC in patients with mUC who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy. TC is beneficial for certain patients, even in cases of progression after EV administration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39827245What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.