TY  - JOUR
TI  - Oncologic outcome and safety profile of first-line enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab vs. conventional chemotherapy in advanced urothelial cancer
AU  - Miyake, Makito
AU  - Nishimura, Nobutaka
AU  - Oda, Yuki
AU  - Shimizu, Takuto
AU  - Inoue, Takeshi
AU  - Anai, Satoshi
AU  - Sakamoto, Keichi
AU  - Matsumura, Yoshiaki
AU  - Toyoshima, Yuta
AU  - Ichii, Daiki
AU  - Iida, Kota
AU  - Iwamoto, Takashi
AU  - Takamatsu, Norimi
AU  - Tomioka, Atsushi
AU  - Yamamoto, Hiroaki
AU  - Maesaka, Fumisato
AU  - Fujimoto, Kiyohide
PY  - 2026
JO  - Exploration of Targeted Anti-tumor Therapy
VL  - 7
SP  - 1002379
DO  - 10.37349/etat.2026.1002379
UR  - https://www.explorationpub.com/Journals/etat/Article/1002379
AB  - 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.
ER  -