Characterization of patients (pts) responding to enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P): Exploratory analysis from the phase 3 EV-302 trial of EV+P vs chemotherapy (chemo) in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC).

S Shilpa Gupta (Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology Taussig Cancer Institute Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA) J Jens Bedke (Eva Mayr-Stihl Cancer Center, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany) M Michiel S. Van Der Heijden (Department of Medical Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam Netherlands) B Begoña P. Valderrama (Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain) E Eiji Kikuchi J Jeannie Hoffman-Censits (From the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (A.B.A., N.S., S.N., L.L., L.C.), the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (J.H.-C.), and the Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville (H.S., E.S.) — all in Maryland; the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (K.V.B., M.O., C.M., G.P.B.); AdventHealth Cancer Institute and the University of Central Florida, Orlando (G.S.); Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston (S.B., B.M.); UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (W.Y.K.), and Duke University Medical Center and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham (J.H., S.H.) — both in North Carolina; the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood (R.P.); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (M.Y.T., M.J.M., J.E.R.), and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo (G.C.) — both in...) G Gopa Iyer C Christof Vulsteke (Integrated Cancer Center Ghent, AZ Maria Middelares, Ghent, Belgium) S Steffen Rausch S Se Hoon Park A Alexandra Drakaki W Waddah Arafat (Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX) U Umang Swami (Division of Medical Oncology Department of Internal Medicine Huntsman Cancer Institute University of Utah Salt Lake City Utah USA) I Ignacio Duran (Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain) J Jian-Ri Li B Blanca Homet Moreno (Merck, Rahway, NJ) J Jasmine Lichfield (Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd, Addlestone, United Kingdom) X Xuesong Yu (Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA) Y Yi-Tsung Lu (Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA) T Thomas Powles (Department of Medical Oncology Barts Cancer Institute Queen Mary University of London London UK)

Abstract

746 Background: EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 (NCT04223856) showed sustained efficacy benefits after long-term follow-up for pts with previously untreated la/mUC treated with EV+P vs chemo, establishing EV+P as the standard of care (SOC) in this setting. We previously reported an exploratory analysis of responders from EV-302 (Gupta S, et al. ASCO 2025, Abs 4502). After approximately 2.5 years of median follow-up, confirmed objective response rate (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) was 67.5% with EV+P and 44.2% with chemo; CR was 30.4% and 14.5%, respectively. For pts with CR, median PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR), median OS, and median duration of CR were not estimable (NE) with EV+P. Among pts with CR in the EV+P arm, median treatment (tx) duration was longer than in the overall population, but no worsening of safety was seen. Building on this exploratory analysis, we report additional data to further characterize responders in EV-302. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive EV (1.25 mg/kg; D1 and D8, IV) + P (200 mg; D1, IV) or chemo (gemcitabine + cisplatin (cis)/carboplatin). Primary endpoints were PFS by BICR and OS. Secondary endpoints included ORR, duration of response (DOR), and safety. An exploratory subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in responders. Results: Median follow-up (cutoff: Aug 8, 2024) was 29.1 mo (95% CI, 28.5-29.9). 886 pts were randomized to EV+P (n = 442) vs chemo (n = 444). Median time to objective response was 2.1 mo with both EV+P and chemo. In the EV+P and chemo arms, respectively, median DOR was 23.3 (17.8-NE) mo and 7.0 (6.2-9.0) mo in responders, 24.4 (17.8-NE) mo and 8.3 (5.9-10.8) mo in cis-eligible pts, and 21.9 (15.7-NE) mo and 6.6 (5.5-9.3) mo in cis-ineligible pts. Median time to CR was 4.3 mo with EV+P and 4.2 mo with chemo. In the EV+P arm, 88/437 (20.1% of the response evaluable set) achieved PR then converted to CR; 38/441 (8.6%) did in the chemo arm. With most pts achieving CR initially experiencing PR (88/133 with EV+P and 38/64 with chemo), median time from first PR to CR was 4.5 mo with EV+P and 6.1 mo with chemo. Among responders in the EV+P arm, the median number (range) of cycles was 12 (1-54) for EV and 17 (1-35) for P. Conclusions: Among pts achieving objective response, PFS and OS were longer in the EV+P arm than in the chemo arm. Durable responses were seen regardless of cis eligibility. Most pts in CR achieved PR before CR, with pts in the EV+P arm converting to CR more rapidly than those in the chemo arm. The safety profile of EV+P in responders was consistent with that of the overall population, and no new safety signals were identified. These data, together with long-term outcomes for pts with CR and PR, reinforce EV+P as the SOC for 1L tx of pts with la/mUC. Clinical trial information: NCT04223856 .

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 7_suppl
Published March 01, 2026
Pages 746-746
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

S

Shilpa Gupta

Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology Taussig Cancer Institute Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA

J

Jens Bedke

Eva Mayr-Stihl Cancer Center, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

M

Michiel S. Van Der Heijden

Department of Medical Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam Netherlands

B

Begoña P. Valderrama

Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain

E

Eiji Kikuchi

J

Jeannie Hoffman-Censits

From the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (A.B.A., N.S., S.N., L.L., L.C.), the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (J.H.-C.), and the Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville (H.S., E.S.) — all in Maryland; the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (K.V.B., M.O., C.M., G.P.B.); AdventHealth Cancer Institute and the University of Central Florida, Orlando (G.S.); Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston (S.B., B.M.); UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (W.Y.K.), and Duke University Medical Center and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham (J.H., S.H.) — both in North Carolina; the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood (R.P.); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (M.Y.T., M.J.M., J.E.R.), and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo (G.C.) — both in...

G

Gopa Iyer

C

Christof Vulsteke

Integrated Cancer Center Ghent, AZ Maria Middelares, Ghent, Belgium

S

Steffen Rausch

S

Se Hoon Park

A

Alexandra Drakaki

W

Waddah Arafat

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX

U

Umang Swami

Division of Medical Oncology Department of Internal Medicine Huntsman Cancer Institute University of Utah Salt Lake City Utah USA

I

Ignacio Duran

Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain

J

Jian-Ri Li

B

Blanca Homet Moreno

Merck, Rahway, NJ

J

Jasmine Lichfield

Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd, Addlestone, United Kingdom

X

Xuesong Yu

Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA

Y

Yi-Tsung Lu

Pfizer Inc., Bothell, WA

T

Thomas Powles

Department of Medical Oncology Barts Cancer Institute Queen Mary University of London London UK