ArticleScientific reports2025
Efficacy of modified enfortumab vedotin ineligible criteria (mEVITA) in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Enfortumab Vedotin Ineligible criTeriA (EVITA) were proposed for the selection of patients to receive enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab treatment. However, the usefulness of these criteria has not been fully verified. We retrospectively analyzed data from 301 patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who underwent first-line chemotherapy and 135 patients with EV monotherapy in real-world practice. We evaluated the numbers of patients fulfilling the modified EVITA (mEVITA; excluding ocular abnormalities) and the relationship of the mEVITA to the safety and efficacy in patients with EV monotherapy. Of the 301 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 4.3% (n = 13) met the mEVITA criteria. The primary factor contributing to mEVITA ≥ 2 was renal dysfunction. Of the 135 patients who underwent subsequent EV therapy, the number of the mEVITA had no influence on the frequency of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. However, the mEVITA ≥ 2 was significantly associated with temporary EV interruption. Oncological outcomes were not associated with the number of the mEVITA. In conclusion, 4.3% and 14.8% of patients met the mEVITA criteria at the time of first-line and subsequent EV therapy, respectively. Having mEVITA ≥ 2 may be associated with temporary interruption of EV therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.