ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacology2026
Evaluating the Impact of Enfortumab Vedotin Dose Modifications on Clinical Efficacy Using Tumor Growth Inhibition Modeling in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exposure-Response Analysis of Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab as First-Line Therapy for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is approved for previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), based on results from pivotal trials (phase 2, EV-201; phase 3, EV-301) evaluating EV monotherapy at 1.25 mg/kg 3Q4W (Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). Adverse events (AEs) were managed by protocol-recommended dose modifications, with 35.5%-51.7% patients requiring dose reductions and most patients in EV-301 maintaining the 1.25 mg/kg dose through Cycle 7. Dose modifications appeared to have a limited impact on long-term efficacy in patients who achieved a response. Given that target lesion shrinkage is predictive of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with mUC in EV-301, we aimed to quantify the impact of EV starting dose and dose modifications on response onset and durability, hence the impact on PFS and OS, by characterizing tumor dynamics via a tumor growth inhibition (TGI) model. A population pharmacokinetic-TGI model was developed using data from 603 patients with mUC who received EV monotherapy at 0.5-1.25 mg/kg 3Q4W. Various dosing simulations indicated that a 1.25 mg/kg starting dose maximized the likelihood of response, and dose modifications at or after Cycle 3 had limited impact on simulated response duration. However, unwarranted treatment modifications in earlier treatment cycles (<3 cycles) or premature discontinuations may compromise efficacy. In conclusion, higher EV dose intensity, particularly in early cycles, is likely to maximize response probability. Dose modifications appear to be effective in managing AEs, thus allowing patients to continue receiving long-term EV benefits with minimal impact on efficacy.
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.