ArticleBMC cancer2026
Enfortumab vedotin in ECOG-PS 2 advanced urothelial carcinoma patients: a real-world study from the ARON-2
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnfortumab vedotin (EV) is approved for the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), as monotherapy or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), following the results of recent practice-changing clinical trials, such as EV-301 and EV-302. However, EV-301 included only patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) 0 or 1, while ECOG-PS 2 mUC patients were excluded.
objectiveIn clinical settings, the benefit of EV for this group of vulnerable patients remains a significant and yet unresolved question. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of ECOG-PS on survival outcomes in patients treated with EV using the ARON global real-world database. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 483 mUC patients with ECOG-PS 0-1 and 85 with ECOG-PS 2 and treated with EV were included. The coprimary endpoints were Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) to compare the clinical outcomes of mUC patients with ECOG-PS 2 versus ECOG-PS 0 or 1. The secondary endpoints included the comparison of OS and PFS in these two patient groups according to metastatic sites (liver, bone, lung, lymph nodes, brain, soft tissue).
resultsThe median OS was 13.63 months (95% CI 11.9-15.57) and 6.34 months (95% CI 4.96-8.48) in mUC patients with ECOG-PS 0-1 and ECOG-PS 2, respectively. Patients with ECOG-PS 2 receiving EV reported statistically significantly shorter OS compared to those with ECOG-PS 0-1 (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.64-3.06; p < 0.001). The median PFS was 7.39 months (95% CI 6.60-8.04) and 3.98 months (95% CI 3.21-5.95) in mUC patients with ECOG-PS 0-1 and ECOG-PS 2, respectively. Patients with ECOG-PS 2 receiving EV reported statistically significantly shorter PFS compared to those with ECOG-PS 0-1 (HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.29-2.27; p < 0.001). Similarly, shorter OS and PFS was observed in ECOG-PS 2 patients with liver, bone, lung, and lymph nodes metastases, while shorter PFS was associated with lymph nodes and bone metastases.
conclusionsOur analysis showed worse survival outcomes in pretreated mUC with ECOG-PS 2 receiving EV monotherapy; however, given the retrospective design and baseline imbalances between ECOG groups, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of reduced intrinsic EV efficacy. The outcomes of EV monotherapy in ECOG-PS 2 patients remains uncertain and can only be inferred from non-randomized prospective trials and studies based on real-world evidence. Further studies and multicentric translational collaborations are fundamental to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.