Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a randomized, phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) versus platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4502 Background: EV+P nearly doubled median progression-free survival and overall survival vs PBC in patients (pts) with previously untreated la/mUC in the phase 3 EV-302 trial. PROs are reported here. Methods: In EV-302 (NCT04223856) pts were randomized 1:1 to EV+P or PBC (gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin). PRO assessments included the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) completed at baseline, weekly for 12 weeks (wks), then every 3 wks through survival follow-up, inclusive of the time post-progression. Time to pain progression (TTPP) and mean change from baseline in worst pain at wk 26 using the BPI-SF were prespecified analyses statistically tested using a gatekeeping strategy. Mean change from baseline through wk 26 and time to confirmed deterioration (TTCD) of EORTC-QLQ-C30 and BPI-SF domains were prespecified descriptive analyses. TTPP and TTCD were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Of 886 pts randomized, 731 (376 received EV+P; 355 PBC) completed baseline PRO questionnaires. Compliance rates differed between arms and remained >70% through wk 29 for EV+P and through only wk 17 for PBC. Median TTPP was 14.2 months (mos) with EV+P and 10.0 mos with PBC (hazard ratio [HR]=0.92; 95% CI=0.72, 1.17; 2-sided p-value=0.48). The least squares (LS) mean reduction in worst pain at wk 26 was numerically greater with EV+P vs PBC (-0.61 vs -0.03, LS mean difference [95% CI]: -0.58 [-1.05, -0.11] [nominal 2-sided p-value=0.015]). Pts with moderate to severe pain at baseline who were treated with EV+P (n=128, 34%) had a meaningful (>2 pt) improvement from baseline in BPI worst pain from wk 3 through 26. In EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life [GHS/QoL], EV+P demonstrated a transient worsening at wk 3 (-6.3) that returned to baseline from wks 4 through 26, while patients treated with PBC demonstrated deterioration from wk 1 through wk 17 (range -1.2 to -7.1) when scores returned to baseline. TTCD for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL was 5.9 mos with EV+P vs 3.2 mos with PBC (HR = 0.98 [95% CI]: 0.79 – 1.2). Conclusions: Pts treated with EV+P have improved survival compared with PBC without detriment to quality of life and functioning, further supporting the value of EV+P for pts with la/mUC. Compliance, especially after progression, was lower than expected (particularly in the PBC arm) and may have impacted the results. Clinical trial information: NCT04223856 .
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
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".