Adjusted Comparison of First-line Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Platinum-based Chemotherapy ± Avelumab Maintenance for the Treatment of Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma
Ryan Dillon, Robert Jones, Aude Fléchon, Keith Chan, Alicia N. Pepper, Dylan McLoone, Sam Keeping, Jeroen P. Jansen, Allison Thompson, Florence R. Wilson
{"title":"Adjusted Comparison of First-line Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Platinum-based Chemotherapy ± Avelumab Maintenance for the Treatment of Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma","authors":"Ryan Dillon, Robert Jones, Aude Fléchon, Keith Chan, Alicia N. Pepper, Dylan McLoone, Sam Keeping, Jeroen P. Jansen, Allison Thompson, Florence R. Wilson","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2026.06.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>First-line (1L) treatment options for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) include enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P), based on EV-302, or platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) with avelumab maintenance for patients without progression, based on JAVELIN-Bladder 100 (JB-100). Clinicians must choose between EV+P and PBC without knowing whether patients will respond to PBC and qualify for avelumab. In EV-302, avelumab maintenance was approved after trial initiation and therefore, was potentially underutilized among patients without progression. This modeling study facilitated a true 1L comparison of EV+P versus PBC ± avelumab.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Progression-free survival and overall survival were compared using EV-302 patient-level data and JB-100 study-level data. The JB-100 hazard ratio (HR) for avelumab versus best supportive care was applied to a comparable EV-302 PBC subgroup of patients without progression after a 22-week 1L period. This replaced EV-302 data for patients without progression to reflect outcomes assuming all EV-302 patients without progression received avelumab as observed in JB-100. Using a weighted hazard approach, patients without progression were combined with EV-302 patients with progression to obtain a hybrid PBC ± avelumab arm, which was compared with observed EV+P outcomes. Weighted average HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>EV+P improved progression-free survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44–0.59) and overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.86) versus PBC ± avelumab. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. Limitations include assuming all patients without progression received avelumab, which may not reflect real-world patterns.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>EV+P provides progression-free survival and overall survival benefits over PBC ± avelumab, reinforcing its position as the 1L standard of care in patients with la/mUC.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"9 4","pages":"Pages 938-945"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588931126001720","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objective
First-line (1L) treatment options for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) include enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P), based on EV-302, or platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) with avelumab maintenance for patients without progression, based on JAVELIN-Bladder 100 (JB-100). Clinicians must choose between EV+P and PBC without knowing whether patients will respond to PBC and qualify for avelumab. In EV-302, avelumab maintenance was approved after trial initiation and therefore, was potentially underutilized among patients without progression. This modeling study facilitated a true 1L comparison of EV+P versus PBC ± avelumab.
Methods
Progression-free survival and overall survival were compared using EV-302 patient-level data and JB-100 study-level data. The JB-100 hazard ratio (HR) for avelumab versus best supportive care was applied to a comparable EV-302 PBC subgroup of patients without progression after a 22-week 1L period. This replaced EV-302 data for patients without progression to reflect outcomes assuming all EV-302 patients without progression received avelumab as observed in JB-100. Using a weighted hazard approach, patients without progression were combined with EV-302 patients with progression to obtain a hybrid PBC ± avelumab arm, which was compared with observed EV+P outcomes. Weighted average HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
Key findings and limitations
EV+P improved progression-free survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44–0.59) and overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.86) versus PBC ± avelumab. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. Limitations include assuming all patients without progression received avelumab, which may not reflect real-world patterns.
Conclusions and clinical implications
EV+P provides progression-free survival and overall survival benefits over PBC ± avelumab, reinforcing its position as the 1L standard of care in patients with la/mUC.
期刊介绍:
Journal Name: European Urology Oncology
Affiliation: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology
Focus:
First official publication of the EAU fully devoted to the study of genitourinary malignancies
Aims to deliver high-quality research
Content:
Includes original articles, opinion piece editorials, and invited reviews
Covers clinical, basic, and translational research
Publication Frequency: Six times a year in electronic format