MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real-world evidence for enfortumab vedotin (EV) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): a multi-centred observational study in a publicly funded Canadian system.

2024· article· en· W4399394081 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenny Peng, Katrina Hueniken, Francis Proulx-Rocray, Nimira Alimohamed, Nazanin Fallah‐Rad, Vikaash Kumar, Esmail Mutahar Al-Ezzi, Di Jiang, Normand Blais, Srikala S. Sridhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaObservational studyUrothelial carcinomaOncologyInternal medicineCancerBladder cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16566 Background: EV is a life-prolonging antibody drug conjugate approved and funded in Canada for use in patients with mUC after platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Recently, EV has shown comparable real-world results in the US, Germany, and Switzerland, utilizing a mixed public and private payer system. We report here real-world outcomes associated with EV monotherapy in mUC patients in Canada. Methods: Following ethics approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted for patients with unresectable locally advanced or mUC who initiated EV monotherapy between January 2021 and August 2023 across 3 large academic centres in Canada (Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal). Efficacy was assessed by response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) gathered from electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier curves and logrank tests were used to characterize survival outcomes, Chi-square and Fisher's exact were used to evaluate response rates. Results: Fifty one patients were identified. They were mostly male (n=47, 92%) with a median age of 70 (37 to 89) and had an ECOG performance status of 0 to 1 (n=40, 78%). Primary tumor site included bladder (n=28, 55%), upper tract (n=19, 37%), urethral (n=3, 6%), or unknown (n=1, 2%). Sites of metastases included lymph nodes (n=38, 75%), lung (n=22, 43%), liver (n=16, 31%), and bone (n=24, 47%). Median follow-up was 14.2 (2.6 to 25.8) months. On average, patients received 5.4 (IQR 2.7 to 8.4) months of EV. The RR was 49%, median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 5.4 to 12.7) and median OS was 16.1 months (95% CI 9.8 to not reached). Although PFS was improved among younger patients <=75 years old (p=0.04), OS was similar regardless of age (p=0.76). No significant differences in PFS or OS were found based on site of metastases or prior use of cisplatin versus carboplatin. Higher Bellmunt risk criteria was strongly associated with shorter OS (p=0.012). Most frequent toxicities were fatigue (n=27, 53%), rash (n=21, 41%), and peripheral neuropathy (n= 17, 33%); higher rates of peripheral neuropathy were associated with treatment response (p=0.007). Several patients required dose reductions (n=32, 63%) or interruption (n=42, 82%). Fourteen patients (27%) received subsequent therapy following EV, including paclitaxel (n=7), platinum-rechallenge (n=3), pembrolizumab (n=2), sacituzumab govitecan (n=1), and erdafitinib (n=1). Conclusions: Canadian patients treated with EV monotherapy experienced similar PFS and OS to those reported in clinical trials. The Bellmunt risk score strongly predicted OS and peripheral neuropathy was associated with treatment response. These data strongly support the use of EV monotherapy in real-world settings, regardless of age, site of metastases, or cisplatin-eligibility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.594
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→