Real-World Clinical Outcomes with First-Line Systemic Treatment and Avelumab Maintenance in US Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: The SPEAR Bladder-II Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avelumab first-line maintenance (1LM) is approved for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) who do not have disease progression after platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). This retrospective study describes real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with la/mUC who initiated first-line (1L) systemic treatments, including avelumab 1LM, within iKnowMed, the US community oncology electronic health records database, between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2023 and followed through 28 February 2024. In total, 1658 patients with la/mUC initiated 1L treatment: immuno-oncology (IO) monotherapy (41.2%), PBC only (32.4%), PBC followed by avelumab 1LM (11.2%), and other treatments (15.1%). The median OS (95% CI) from the start of 1L treatment was 20.4 (13.8, 30.0), 11.0 (8.5, 14.5), and 14.6 (12.6, 17.3) months for cisplatin-based only, carboplatin-based only, and IO monotherapy, respectively. Among the overall population, 36.1% and 11.8% of patients received second-line (2L) and third-line treatment, respectively. The median (95% CI) OS from the start of avelumab 1LM was 18.5 (13.8, 23.8) months. After discontinuation of avelumab 1LM, 43.5% received 2L treatment, and 59.3% of those received enfortumab vedotin (EV); the median (95% CI) OS from start of 2L EV was 12.7 (7.2, 16.5) months. Survival outcomes among patients treated with avelumab 1LM and 2L EV are consistent with respective clinical trials and other real-world studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".