ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Outcomes of Enfortumab Vedotin Treatment in Patients Ineligible for the EV-301 Trial.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers 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
- Efficacy and Safety of Enfortumab Vedotin by Trial Eligibility in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multicenter Real-World Study.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Article
- First-line Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab in Platinum-ineligible Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe EV-301 trial demonstrated the efficacy of enfortumab vedotin (EV) as a third-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), showing significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to chemotherapy in patients previously treated with platinum-based therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. In real-world clinical practice, patients undergoing third-line treatment often have poor baseline health status, leading to the off-label use of EV in populations ineligible for clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of EV in both EV-301 trial-eligible and -ineligible patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsFifty-eight patients with mUC treated with EV across five Institutions were retrospectively evaluated and stratified based on the EV-301 trial eligibility criteria. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≥2, baseline hemoglobin level of <9 g/dl, creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, or other protocol-defined criteria were analyzed. Treatment outcomes were assessed for both groups.
resultsOf the 58 patients, 33 (56.9%) met the EV-301 trial eligibility criteria. No significant differences were observed in PFS (median: 9.2
conclusionThe findings of this multi-institutional study highlight the feasibility of EV treatment in EV-301 trial-ineligible patients with mUC, supporting its potential applicability in both trial-eligible and -ineligible groups.
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.