MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408563004 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2025.104506

Avelumab first-line maintenance for advanced urothelial carcinoma: long-term outcomes from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial in older patients

2025· article· en· W4408563004 on OpenAlexaff
Shilpa Gupta, Miguel Á. Climent Durán, S.S. Sridhar, T. Powles, J. Bellmunt, S.H. Park, Howard Gurney, Norihiko Tsuchiya, Daniel P. Petrylak, Yoshihiko Tomita, A. di Pietro, Juliane Manitz, Karin Tyroller, Justin Hoffman, N. Jacob, P. Grivas

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersMerckPfizer
KeywordsJavelinUrothelial carcinomaAvelumabMedicineOncologyCarcinomaTerm (time)UrologyInternal medicineBladder cancerImmunotherapyCancerPembrolizumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase III trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) versus BSC alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) without progression following platinum-based chemotherapy. Older age (≥65 years) is a known risk factor for bladder cancer with a median age at diagnosis of 73.0 years. We report exploratory analyses in subgroups based on older age (≥65 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with la/mUC without progression after 1L platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). This exploratory analysis included subgroups aged ≥65 years, ≥65-<75 years, ≥75 years, and the subset aged ≥80 years. OS (primary endpoint) and progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of 700 patients, 464 (66.3%) were aged ≥65 years. Median OS with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone was 26.1 versus 15.5 months (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.89) in all patients aged ≥65 years and 28.7 versus 17.1, 24.0 versus 13.5, and 24.9 versus 10.0 months, respectively, in patients aged ≥65-<75, ≥75, and ≥80 years. PFS analyses favored avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone in all subgroups. No new safety concerns were identified in patients aged ≥65 years, including those treated for ≥12 months. Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity was 4.57 months longer with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone (a 30.35% relative improvement). Limitations include small sample size for the ≥80-year age subgroup and the exploratory design. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses support the efficacy and tolerability of avelumab 1L maintenance in patients aged ≥65 years with la/mUC that has not progressed following chemotherapy, suggesting that older age should not solely prevent a patient from receiving avelumab 1L maintenance.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207