ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2026
Early versus deferred immunotherapy in urothelial carcinoma: a review of evidence and post-progression survival.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMetastatic urothelial carcinoma has undergone a major therapeutic transition, with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations now established as standard care. In this context, the key clinical question is no longer whether early immunotherapy should be used, but how evidence from historical deferred approaches, switch-maintenance, and contemporary upfront regimens can be interpreted through the lens of post-progression survival (PPS), a major determinant of overall survival (OS).
methodsA narrative synthesis of randomized phase II-III trials (2016-2025), PubMed-indexed studies, and real-world datasets was performed. Data on efficacy (OS, progression-free survival [PFS], PPS), safety, and rates of access to second-line therapy were extracted from JAVELIN Bladder 100, KEYNOTE-045, EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, CheckMate-901, KEYNOTE-361, IMvigor130, and DANUBE.
resultsAvelumab maintenance improved OS (23.8 vs 15.0 months) despite >50% crossover to ICIs. Pembrolizumab after progression prolonged OS (10.3 vs 7.4 months) without PFS benefit, highlighting PPS as a major survival determinant. Real-world evidence indicates that only a minority of patients initiating first-line therapy ultimately receive second-line treatment, supporting therapeutic strategies that ensure earlier exposure to immunotherapy. Frontline combinations, such as enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus cisplatin/gemcitabine, have, therefore, redefined the treatment paradigm and are now preferred standards or validated frontline options, whereas pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, atezolizumab-based combinations, and dual-checkpoint approaches have not demonstrated comparable survival benefit.
conclusionsEarly integration of immunotherapy remains the key principle underlying survival improvement in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but this concept must now be interpreted within a modern therapeutic framework in which enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is the preferred first-line regimen for most patients. Avelumab maintenance and post-platinum pembrolizumab remain historically pivotal benchmark strategies and may still retain relevance where newer regimens are unavailable or unsuitable. Across treatment eras, PPS appears to be a major driver of OS and deserves more systematic reporting in future trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42012774What 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.