MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410935761 · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2025.05.010

Avelumab plus sacituzumab govitecan versus avelumab monotherapy as first-line maintenance treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: JAVELIN Bladder Medley interim analysis

2025· article· en· W4410935761 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Hoffman‐Censits, Marinos Tsiatas, Peter Mu‐Hsin Chang, Minu Kim, L. Antonuzzo, Su‐Jin Shin, Georgios Gakis, Normand Blais, Sung Hoon Kim, Angela B. Smith, Jóse Ángel Arranz Arija, Yu‐Li Su, Flora Zagouri, M. Maruzzo, Christophe Tournigand, Frédéric Forget, A. Schneider, Karin Tyroller, N. Jacob, P. Grivas, Begoña P. Valderrama

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersEMD SeronoGenentechFoundation MedicineLEO PharmaMedacIpsenOno PharmaceuticalGenesis PharmaCilagAstellas PharmaSeagenTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesGilead SciencesDaiichi Sankyo EuropeExelixisSanofiMerckGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbMerck Healthcare KGaA
KeywordsJavelinAvelumabMedicineUrothelial carcinomaInterim analysisInterimOncologyInternal medicineUrologyFirst line treatmentMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaUrothelial cancerBladder cancerChemotherapyImmunotherapyCancerClinical trialPembrolizumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Avelumab first-line maintenance is a recommended treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) without progression following platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). The JAVELIN Bladder Medley phase II trial is investigating the efficacy and safety of maintenance treatment with avelumab combined with other antitumor agents versus avelumab monotherapy. We report an interim analysis of avelumab plus sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus avelumab monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with la/mUC without progression after first-line PBC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive avelumab (800 mg every 2 weeks) plus SG (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles) or avelumab monotherapy (800 mg every 2 weeks). Primary endpoints are investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. For PFS and overall survival (OS), data in the avelumab monotherapy arm were extended per protocol using propensity score-weighted JAVELIN Bladder 100 data. RESULTS: At data cut-off (16 September 2024), 38/74 patients (51.4%) in the avelumab plus SG arm and 10/37 patients (27.0%) in the avelumab monotherapy arm were still receiving study treatment. Median PFS with avelumab plus SG versus avelumab monotherapy was 11.17 versus 3.75 months, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.76; prespecified efficacy boundary: HR ≤ 0.60]. OS data were immature; median OS was not reached versus 23.75 months, respectively (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.42-1.50). In patients treated with avelumab plus SG or avelumab monotherapy, any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 97.3% versus 63.9% (grade ≥3 in 69.9% versus 0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with la/mUC without progression after first-line PBC, PFS was prolonged with avelumab plus SG versus avelumab monotherapy as maintenance treatment. TRAEs were more frequent with the combination and were consistent with known safety profiles of SG and avelumab. Combining avelumab with anti-Trop-2 antibody-drug conjugates may be a promising strategy to improve patient outcomes in la/mUC.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.358
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207