Reevaluating the role of platinum-based chemotherapy in the evolving treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the standard first-line (1L) treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) for decades, based on the proven efficacy and established safety profiles of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based regimens. With the emergence of novel regimens, it is important to reevaluate and contextualize the role of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab 1L maintenance in patients without disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy was established as a standard 1L regimen based on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase III trial. More recently, the EV-302 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, and the Checkmate 901 phase III trial showed the superiority of 1L nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. These 2 regimens have now been included as standard 1L options in treatment guidelines for advanced UC. EV + pembrolizumab is now the preferred 1L treatment, and in locations where EV + pembrolizumab is not available or individual patients are not considered suitable, recommended options are platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance or nivolumab + cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In this review, we discuss current treatment options for advanced UC recommended in guidelines, practical considerations with platinum-based chemotherapy, the role of avelumab 1L maintenance, recent phase III trials of EV + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + cisplatin/gemcitabine, safety profiles of recommended 1L treatments, and second-line treatment options.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".