Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40449498›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2025

Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (EV-302): patient-reported outcomes from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

Shilpa Gupta, Yohann Loriot, Michiel S Van der Heijden, Jens Bedke, Begoña P Valderrama, Eiji Kikuchi, Aude Fléchon, Daniel Petrylak, Maria De Santis, Matthew D Galsky and 15 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Prognostic value and diagnostic performance of nectin-4-targeted [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Dual-Target Nectin-4/FAP Heterobivalent ProbeAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  8. Coordinated Expression of ADC TargetsCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Shilpa GuptaDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: guptas5@ccf.org.
Yohann LoriotDepartment of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Michiel S Van der HeijdenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jens BedkeDepartment of Urology and Eva Mayr-Stihl Cancer Center, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Begoña P ValderramaMedical Oncology, Radiation Oncology and Radiophysics Unit, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
Eiji KikuchiDepartment of Urology, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.
Aude FléchonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Urological Oncology Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
Daniel PetrylakDepartment of Medical Oncology, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USA.
Maria De SantisDepartment of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Matthew D GalskyDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Jae Lyun LeeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Umang SwamiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute-University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Srikala S SridharCancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ugo De GiorgiDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Instituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori Dino Amadori, Meldola, Italy.
Phoebe WrightHealth Technology Assessment Value and Evidence, Pfizer, Bothell, WA, USA.
Vanessa ShihHealth Technology Assessment Value and Evidence, Pfizer, Bothell, WA, USA.
Yi-Tsung LuClinical Development, Pfizer, Bothell, WA, USA.
Xuesong GuanClinical Development, Biostatistics, Pfizer, Bothell, WA, USA.
Ryan DillonGlobal Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Astellas Pharma, Northbrook, IL, USA.
Aditya ShettyGlobal Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Astellas Pharma, Northbrook, IL, USA.
Blanca Homet MorenoDepartment of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA.
Jennifer L BeaumontBiostatistics, Clinical Outcomes Solutions, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Intan PurnajoBiostatistics, Clinical Outcomes Solutions, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Shauna McManusHealth Economics and Outcomes Research & Market Access, OPEN Health Group, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Thomas PowlesDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the ongoing EV-302 trial, first-line enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from EV-302 are reported here.

methodsEV-302 was a phase 3, open-label, two-group, randomised global study to evaluate the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab versus standard-of-care platinum-based chemotherapy (gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin) in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. The study was done at 185 clinical sites in 25 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older with unresectable untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, were eligible for platinum-based chemotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either enfortumab vedotin (1·25 mg/kg, intravenously) on days 1 and 8 of 3-week cycles plus pembrolizumab (200 mg, intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle; or platinum-based chemotherapy consisting of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m

findingsAt data cutoff on Aug 8, 2023, 886 patients were enrolled in the study, with a median duration of follow-up for survival of 17·2 months (IQR 12·5-21·7). 731 (83%) of 886 patients completed at least one PRO questionnaire at baseline and were included in the PRO full analysis set, with 376 patients treated with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab and 355 with platinum-based chemotherapy. 570 (78%) of 731 patients were male, 161 (22%) were female, and 479 (66%) patients were White. There was no significant difference in time to pain progression between treatments; hence differences in least squares mean change in BPI-SF worst pain score from baseline to week 26 with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy were not formally tested. However, a numerical improvement from baseline up to week 26 was observed (least squares mean -0·74, SE 0·12 vs -0·36, 0·12; least squares mean difference -0·38, SE 0·13; 95% CI -0·64 to -0·12; nominal two-sided p value 0·0037). Overall least squares mean change in EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status (GHS)/QOL from baseline up to week 26 favoured enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (least squares mean difference 2·54, 95% CI 0·41-4·67). In patients with moderate to severe baseline pain (worst pain score ≥5) receiving enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab, there were clinically meaningful improvements from baseline up to week 26 in worst pain (least squares mean change: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab -2·96 [SE 0·22], platinum-based chemotherapy -2·43 [0·21]; least squares mean difference -0·53, 95% CI -1·03 to -0·02; nominal p=0·041) and in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL (least squares mean change: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab 8·88 [1·53], platinum-based chemotherapy 4·11 [1·45]; least squares mean difference 4·77, 95% CI 1·24-8·29; nominal p=0·0083).

interpretationEnfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab significantly improved survival outcomes versus platinum-based chemotherapy without detriment to GHS/QOL, pain, or functioning. Patients with moderate to severe baseline pain had clinically meaningful improvements in worst pain and GHS/QOL with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. These data provide further evidence to support the use of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as a preferred treatment option for patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

fundingSeagen (acquired by Pfizer in December, 2023), Astellas Pharma, and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Transitional CellPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresUrologic NeoplasmsAdultAgedCarboplatinCisplatinDeoxycytidineFemaleGemcitabineHumansMaleMiddle AgedAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCarboplatinCisplatinDeoxycytidineenfortumab vedotinGemcitabinepembrolizumab

Identifiers

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.