Trial reportClinical genitourinary cancer2026
Atezolizumab in Combination With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin as First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Study of Two Alternative Dosing Schedules.
Trial report in Clinical genitourinary cancer, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe potential impact of treatment sequencing in chemoimmunotherapy combinations remains underexplored. We evaluated 2 alternative dosing schedules of chemotherapy (cisplatin and gemcitabine [GC]) and an immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI; atezolizumab [A]) for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC).
methodsThis multicenter phase II study randomized cisplatin-eligible patients with previously untreated mUC in a 1:1 ratio. The chemo-first schedule included 2 cycles of GC, followed by 4 cycles of GC + A and A maintenance. The CPI-first schedule originally included a two-cycle A lead-in, later amended to a one-cycle lead-in, followed by 6 cycles of GC + A and A maintenance. The primary endpoint was objective response rate after the protocol amendment. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.
resultsOverall, 31 patients were randomized between 9/2017 and 2/2021 (chemo-first, n = 15; CPI-first, n = 16), with early discontinuation due to the evolving mUC management paradigm. Among the per-protocol evaluable patients (n = 19), ORR was 44% (95% CI, 14%-79%) in the chemo-first schedule and 40% (95% CI, 12%-74%) in the CPI-first amended schedule, with neither arm meeting the predefined efficacy threshold. Median follow-up was 60 months (95% CI 48-not reached [NR]). Median progression-free survival and overall survival (95% CI) were: chemo-first, 6.1 (4.4-NR) and 15 (10-NR) months; CPI-first original, 1.3 (1.1-NR) and 12 (8.4-NR) months; and CPI-first amended, 7.6 (2.0-NR) and 26 (3.6-NR) months. No new safety signals or treatment-related deaths occurred.
conclusionsThis study evaluating the impact of chemotherapy and CPI dosing sequence in patients with mUC was limited by a small sample size and early discontinuation, with neither arm meeting the primary endpoint. Exploratory observations highlight CPI lead-in duration as a potential consideration for future trial design.
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.