Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: In the phase III EV-302 study (NCT04223856), enfortumab vedotin (EV) plus pembrolizumab (P) demonstrated superior efficacy and safety versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC). We report the efficacy of EV+P in prespecified subgroups, including those defined by cisplatin eligibility status, the presence or absence of liver metastases, and metastatic disease sites.
Methods: Patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive either EV 1.25 mg/kg and pembrolizumab 200 mg, or gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin, all intravenously. The two primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Confirmed objective response rate was one of the secondary endpoints.
Results: Overall, 886 patients were randomized: 442 to EV+P and 444 to chemotherapy. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. Efficacy and safety data for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, along with PFS and OS data for cisplatin-eligible and -ineligible patients, were previously published (Powles et al. N Eng J Med, 2024). In this analysis, EV+P showed benefit across prespecified subgroups that was consistent with the ITT population. OS benefit in the EV+P arm versus chemotherapy was seen across all subgroups, including patients with liver metastases (OS 19.1 versus 10.1 months), patients without liver metastases [OS not estimable (NE) versus 17.9 months], patients with visceral metastases (OS 25.6 versus 13.6 months), and in patients with lymph node-only disease (OS NE versus 27.5 months). In addition, confirmed objective response rate and PFS benefit with EV+P versus chemotherapy was seen across all examined subgroups.
Conclusion: Along with previously published safety data, EV+P demonstrated benefit compared with chemotherapy across all prespecified subgroups, consistent with the ITT population and supporting EV+P as the standard of care for first-line treatment of la/mUC.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12361773 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2025.105544 | DOI Listing |