ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Real-world use of enfortumab vedotin in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: efficacy, safety, and risk stratification.
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Six-factor-based stratification system for enfortumab vedotin monotherapy in pre-treated patients with metastatic or locally advanced urothelial carcinoma.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Real-world prognostic assessment of the HERO score in metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with enfortumab vedotin (ARON-2EV study).ESMO open · 2026Article
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV), an antibody-drug conjugate targeting Nectin-4, has demonstrated efficacy in advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) following platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. However, real-world evidence on its effectiveness and safety remains limited. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study across Italian oncology centers to evaluate EV in patients with metastatic UC (mUC) who had progressed after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and ICI. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. We also assessed prognostic factors, including a composite index (HERO score) based on baseline hemoglobin and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Results: Fifty-three patients were included (median age 72 years; 41.5% ⩾75 years). The ORR was 34.0% (all partial responses), with a DCR of 58.5%. Median PFS and OS were 6.1 and 9.7 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified NLR ⩾ 4 and lung metastases as independent predictors of inferior PFS, while NLR ⩾ 4 remained independently associated with worse OS. Dose reductions and peripheral neuropathy were associated with improved outcomes. The HERO score significantly stratified patients by PFS and OS ( Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, EV confirmed its efficacy and manageable safety profile in mUC. The HERO score may provide a simple tool for risk stratification in clinical practice, though prospective validation is needed.
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.