ArticleExploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy2026
Oncologic outcome and safety profile of first-line enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab vs. conventional chemotherapy in advanced urothelial cancer.
Article in Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this multicenter study was to assess patient characteristics and short-term survival outcomes of first-line (1L) enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EVP) as compared with conventional chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). Methods: The database included 642 patients with la/mUC diagnosed between January 2008 and December 2025 at 12 collaborating hospitals. Baseline characteristics and follow-up data, including overall and organ-specific objective tumor response according to the RECIST v1.1, progression-free survival, and duration of response, were compared among the 1L regimens. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were graded according to the CTCAE v5.0 in patients treated with 1L EVP. Results: The objective response and disease control rate were higher with 1L EVP than with chemotherapy (66% vs. 42% and 83% vs. 68%, respectively). The organ-specific response rate for liver metastatic lesions was 85%. Median progression-free survival (95% confidence interval) for 1L EVP, gemcitabine plus cisplatin, and gemcitabine plus carboplatin was 14.5 months (10.5-not determined), 10.5 months (8.4-13.3), and 9.2 months (6.7-14.2), respectively. In the safety analysis set including 40 patients, all-grade TRAEs occurred in 36 (90%) patients, including grade 1-2 events in 30 (75%) and grade 3-4 toxicities in 6 (15%). Grade 3-4 TRAEs included skin toxicity (7.5%), anorexia (5.0%), anemia (5.0%), gastrointestinal disorders (2.5%), renal dysfunction (2.5%), and interstitial lung disease (2.5%). The median number of administered EV cycles was 4 (range, 1-13), 5 (2-13), and 10 (4-13) in the overall, responder, and complete-response populations, respectively. EV dose modifications and interruptions were frequent in the initial 2 months but rare thereafter. Conclusions: This multicenter study provides real-world evidence on short-term outcomes and safety with 1L EVP, highlighting its impact on the evolving treatment landscape for la/mUC.
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.