ArticleBMC cancer2026
Toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin versus tislelizumab-based combination in advanced urothelial carcinoma: a real-world comparative study.
Article in BMC 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal PD-1 inhibitor to combine with disitamab vedotin in advanced urothelial carcinoma remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin versus tislelizumab plus disitamab vedotin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
methodsIn this retrospective study, clinical data were collected from patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with a PD-1 inhibitor combined with disitamab vedotin between August 2021 and July 2025. Patients received either toripalimab-based (Group A) or tislelizumab-based therapy (Group B). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Tumor response was assessed according to RECIST criteria, including complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD), as well as objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were graded according to standard criteria.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between the two groups in OS or PFS. The ORR and overall tumor response profiles were comparable between Group A and Group B. However, Group A demonstrated a lower rate of disease progression (9.30% vs. 28.95%) and a higher DCR (90.70% vs. 71.05%) compared with Group B. In terms of safety, the tislelizumab-based regimen was associated with significantly higher incidences of dermatitis, hypokalemia, anemia, and hypocalcemia.
conclusionsIn this real-world study, toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin and tislelizumab plus disitamab vedotin demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Although no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed, the toripalimab-based regimen was associated with a lower rate of disease progression, a higher disease control rate, and a more favorable safety profile. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to further validate these findings.
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.