ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2026
Effectiveness and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab in a real-world patient population with urothelial carcinoma: results from a multi-institutional cohort (GUARDIANS).
Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 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
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EVP) is the standard first-line treatment for metastatic or locally advanced urothelial carcinoma (m/laUC). Real-world patients frequently present with unfavorable clinical characteristics, raising uncertainty about whether outcomes mirror those of the pivotal EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 trial. This study assessed effectiveness and safety of EVP in a real-world cohort of patients with m/laUC. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective multicenter study including patients treated with EVP across 25 German hospitals (between 03/2022 and 08/2025). Treatment delivery and monitoring followed local clinical standards. Adverse events (AEs) were documented per CTCAE v5.0. Responses were assessed locally using RECIST v1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methodology.
resultsA total of 468 patients (median age = 69 years) were included. The overall response rate (ORR) was 50.2% (partial response:37.4%, complete response:12.8%). Median PFS was 10.2 months (95%CI,8.0-12.7). 12-month and 24-month OS rates were 71.9% and 60.6%, respectively. ECOG PS 0-1 and occurrence of skin toxicity were associated with improved outcomes. Any-grade AEs occurred in 81.8% and grade ≥ 3 AEs in 35.8%. Peripheral sensory neuropathy and skin toxicity were the most common AEs. Ten treatment-related fatal events were recorded.
conclusionsEVP demonstrated robust effectiveness and manageable toxicity in a large and diverse real-world cohort including patients with divergent histology. Skin toxicity was associated with superior ORR, PFS, and OS. Our findings support EVP as an effective first-line option for patients with m/laUC treated outside clinical trials.
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.