ArticleJAMA network open2026
First-Line Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab vs Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV/P) recently emerged as the preferred first-line treatment regimen for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), but evidence outside trial settings is relatively limited. Objective: To evaluate outcomes associated with first-line EV/P compared with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (G/C) in patients with mUC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX database. Adults with mUC initiating first-line EV/P or G/C between September 2007 and September 2025 were included. Cohorts were propensity score matched for comparison by demographic characteristics, comorbidities, kidney function, and location of metastatic disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included time to next treatment (TTNT), time to hospitalization within 90 days of treatment initiation (EHA), and adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log rank test, reporting hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Results: The study included 4433 patients (1841 receiving EV/P and 2592 receiving G/C), with the EV/P group being significantly older (mean [SD] age, 70.6 [10.1] years vs 67.2 [10.6] years; P < .001) and having a higher proportion of Black patients (129 [6.7%] vs 139 [5.3%]; P = .04) and White patients (1445 [76.0%] vs 1614 [61.8%]) but a smaller proportion of Asian patients (145 [7.6%] vs 326 [12.5%]; P < .001). The EV/P group also carried a greater comorbidity burden, including higher rates of heart failure, diabetes, and obesity, while baseline characteristics were well balanced after propensity score matching. First line EV/P was associated with lower risk of death (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.79), longer median OS (20 vs 11 months), lower risk of EHA (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83), and longer TTNT (median, 35 vs 10 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61). Receipt of EV/P at first line was associated with higher rates of rash, hyperglycemia, and hypothyroidism but fewer cytopenias and gastrointestinal toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with mUC, EV/P was associated with longer OS, delayed TTNT, and lower time to EHA compared with G/C. These findings support the broader adoption of EV/P as first-line therapy in routine clinical practice.
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.