ArticleESMO open2026
Full enrollment results from cohort 1 of the phase III randomized THOR trial of erdafitinib versus chemotherapy in FGFR-altered advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Article in ESMO 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCohort 1 of the phase III THOR trial met the primary endpoint of significantly longer overall survival (OS) with erdafitinib versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and select FGFR3/2 alterations who have progressed after prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment. We present efficacy and safety results for the full cohort 1 at the end-of-study data cut-off (final database lock: 7 June 2024). PATIENTS AND
methodsAdults with mUC with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after 1-2 prior treatments that included an anti-PD-(L)1 were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive erdafitinib or investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary endpoint was OS and progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were key secondary endpoints.
resultsAt the end of data collection, median follow-up was 21.0 months for erdafitinib and 18.0 months for chemotherapy for the 278 patients in the fully enrolled THOR cohort 1 (erdafitinib, n = 143; chemotherapy, n = 135). Median OS remained significantly longer with erdafitinib versus chemotherapy [12.1 versus 8.7 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.86, P = 0.0031]. Erdafitinib also showed sustained improvements over chemotherapy in PFS (median 5.4 versus 2.7 months, HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77, P < 0.0001) and ORR (46.9% versus 12.6%, relative risk 3.74, 95% CI 2.31-6.04, P < 0.001). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 67.6% of patients in the erdafitinib group and 65.8% in the chemotherapy group. Erdafitinib was associated with fewer treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) (12.7% versus 24.8%), treatment-related deaths (0.7% versus 6.0%), and treatment-related AEs that led to discontinuations (9.2% versus 14.5%) compared with chemotherapy.
conclusionsAt the end of data collection, erdafitinib continued to demonstrate survival and clinical response benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis. No new safety signals were observed. These mature data support the use of erdafitinib in patients with advanced/mUC and susceptible FGFR3 alterations after PD-(L)1 inhibition.
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.