Observational studyCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Outcomes and Management of Dermatologic Toxicity Following Enfortumab Vedotin Rechallenge in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.
Observational study in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. 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.
- Outcomes and Management of Dermatologic Toxicity Following Enfortumab Vedotin Rechallenge in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnfortumab vedotin (EV) has demonstrated clinical benefits as a third-line monotherapy after chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors and is currently established, in combination with pembrolizumab, as a first-line standard therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, dermatologic adverse events (DAEs) are common and may necessitate treatment interruption. While EV rechallenge is often considered, evidence regarding the recurrence and management of DAEs after rechallenge is limited.
aimsTo analyze the incidence, timing, and severity of DAEs following EV rechallenge and assess the impact of dose modifications and initial inpatient versus outpatient management on clinical outcomes. METHODS AND
resultsThis retrospective observational study included patients with mUC who received EV at a single institution between January 2022 and December 2024. Of the 48 patients treated with EV, 36 (75.0%) developed DAEs, with a median onset of 11 days. Twenty patients resumed EV after interruption due to DAEs; 13 (65%) experienced recurrence. Recurrent DAEs tended to be of lower grade than the initial events and to be similar to the initial episode in terms of the type of DAEs. Early-onset (≤ 7 days) DAEs were more likely to progress to grade ≥ 3. Although inpatient management enabled earlier detection and intervention, it did not reduce the incidence of severe toxicity compared to outpatient care.
conclusionDAEs frequently recur after EV rechallenge but are typically less severe than the initial episode. Early-onset DAEs may predict severe toxicity, underscoring the need for close monitoring and proactive management. Prospective studies are warranted to optimize rechallenge strategies and improve the safety 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.