MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415937477 · doi:10.1200/oa-25-00053

Enfortumab Vedotin in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Breast Cancer in the Phase II EV-202 Study

2025· article· en· W4415937477 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Giordano, Arif Awan, Justine Y. Bruce, Hope S. Rugo, Jennifer R. Diamond, Yelena Novik, Joaquina Baranda, Kei Muro, Makiko Ono, Rita Nanda, Jason Kaplan, Seema Rao Gorla, Shubin Liu, Michele Wozniak, Srinivasu Poondru, Ryan Dillon, Changting Meng, Tiffany A. Traina

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO oncology advances. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRashMaculopapular rashBreast cancerAdverse effectRegimenClinical endpointPhases of clinical researchToxicityMetastatic breast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE EV-202 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04225117 ) evaluated enfortumab vedotin (EV), a nectin-4–directed antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2−) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS This open-label, multicohort, Phase II study included eligible adults with locally advanced or metastatic (la/m) BC who had progressed, relapsed, or discontinued for toxicity during or after ≥1 previous standard-of-care cytotoxic regimen in the incurable, unresectable la/m setting, and had not received >2 previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the la/m setting. Patients had received previous endocrine treatment (HR+/HER2−) or PD-1/L1 inhibitor if eligible (TNBC). Patients received EV 1.25 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Forty-five women with HR+/HER2− BC received EV. Confirmed ORR and DCR were 15.6% and 51.1%, respectively. Median DOR, PFS, and OS were 7.23, 5.39, and 19.75 months, respectively. Twenty patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), most commonly, rash maculopapular (n = 7, 16%), pruritus, and increased AST (both n = 3, 7%). Forty-two women with TNBC received EV. Confirmed ORR and DCR were 19.0% and 57.1%, respectively. Median DOR, PFS, and OS were 3.78, 3.52, and 12.91 months, respectively. Twelve patients experienced grade ≥3 TRAEs, most commonly, decreased neutrophil count (n = 3, 7%). CONCLUSION Although EV showed antitumor activity in heavily pretreated HR+/HER2− BC and TNBC, efficacy did not meet the prespecified threshold. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports. A trend was not observed between nectin-4 and patient response.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.406 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO oncology advances.Same topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207