ArticleThe oncologist2025
Efficacy of erdafitinib before or after enfortumab vedotin in FGFR3-altered advanced urothelial cancer: analysis of the UNITE collaborative study.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Spatial Atlas of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Reveals Lineage-Specific Vulnerabilities and Immune Architecture.Cancer discovery · 2026Article
- FDA Approval Summary: Erdafitinib for FGFR3-Altered Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErdafitinib is approved for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (LA/mUC). As enfortumab vedotin (EV) plus pembrolizumab enters frontline management, outcomes with erdafitinib pre- and post-EV are clinically relevant but not specifically evaluated in clinical trials.
methodsUNITE is a multi-institutional retrospective study of patients with LA/mUC treated with novel targeted agents. All patients with FGFR3 alterations treated with EV only, erdafitinib then EV (Erda->EV), and EV then erdafitinib (EV->Erda) were included. Sequential treatment with EV and Erda was not required. Primary endpoints were observed response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS).
resultsWe identified 83 patients with FGFR3 alterations and separated them into three cohorts: EV only (n = 44), Erda->EV (n = 24), and EV->Erda (n = 15). Most (72%) received ≥2 lines of therapy before erdafitinib (checkpoint inhibitor [87%], platinum-based chemotherapy [64%]). Median PFS with erdafitinib for EV-naïve cohort was 7.5 months and in EV-treated cohort 4.0 months (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.35-1.7). ORR with erdafitinib for EV-naïve was 33% and EV-treated 31% (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.29-4.1). Median PFS with EV for patients who were erdafitinib-naïve was 6 months and in erdafitinib-treated 5.3 months (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-1.09). ORR with EV was 54% in erdafitinib-naïve cohort and 32% in erdafitinib-treated cohort (OR 2.5; 95% CI 0.87-6.3).
conclusionIn patients with FGFR3-altered LA/mUC, erdafitinib is active pre- and post-EV. Outcomes with erdafitinib were consistent with clinical trial data generated prior to broader frontline use of EV. Findings are hypothesis-generating and given small sample size should be interpreted with caution.
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.