Pharmacotherapeutic group: Antineoplastic agents, other antineoplastic agents, monoclonal antibodies, ATC code: L01FX13.
Mechanism of action
Enfortumab vedotin is an ADC targeting Nectin-4, an adhesion protein located on the surface of the urothelial cancer cells. It is comprised of a fully human IgG1-kappa antibody conjugated to the microtubule-disrupting agent MMAE via a protease‑cleavable maleimidocaproyl valine-citrulline linker. Nonclinical data suggest that the anticancer activity of enfortumab vedotin is due to the binding of the ADC to Nectin‑4‑expressing cells, followed by internalisation of the ADC-Nectin-4 complex, and the release of MMAE via proteolytic cleavage. Release of MMAE disrupts the microtubule network within the cell, subsequently inducing cell cycle arrest, apoptosis and immunogenic cell death. MMAE released from enfortumab vedotin targeted cells can diffuse into nearby Nectin-4 low‑expressing cells resulting in cytotoxic cell death. Combination of enfortumab vedotin with programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors results in enhanced anti-tumour activity, consistent with the complementary mechanisms of MMAE induced cell cytotoxicity and induction of immunogenic cell death, plus the up-regulation of immune function by PD-1 inhibition.
Cardiac electrophysiology
At the recommended dose of 1.25 mg/kg, enfortumab vedotin did not prolong the mean QTc interval to any clinically relevant extent based on ECG data from a study in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.
Clinical efficacy and safety
Enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab
Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)
EV-304 (KEYNOTE-B15)
The efficacy of Padcev in combination with pembrolizumab as neoadjuvant treatment and then continued after radical cystectomy (RC) as adjuvant treatment was evaluated in study EV-304 (KEYNOTE-B15), an open‑label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre study that enrolled patients who received neoadjuvant and adjuvant enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin. Key eligibility criteria were previously untreated cT2-T4aN0M0 or cT1-T4aN1M0 MIBC in patients who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and were eligible for RC and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), regardless of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status. Patients with active autoimmune disease that required systemic therapy within 2 years of treatment or a medical condition that required immunosuppression were ineligible.
Patients were randomised 1:1 to one of the following treatment arms:
• Enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab (n=405): Neoadjuvant enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes on Days 1 and 8 and neoadjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg over 30 minutes on Day 1 of each 3‑week (21-day) cycle for 4 cycles. Following RC and PLND, adjuvant enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg over 30 minutes on Days 1 and 8 of each 3-week (21-day) cycle for 5 cycles and adjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg over 30 minutes on Day 1 of each 3‑week (21-day) cycle for 13 cycles.
• Gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=403): Neoadjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on Day 1 of each 3-week (21-day) cycle for 4 cycles. Following RC and PLND, followed by observation.
Treatment continued until completion of the treatment, disease progression that precluded RC and PLND, not undergoing or refusal of RC and PLND, disease recurrence in the adjuvant phase or unacceptable toxicity. Assessment of tumour status was performed at baseline, within 5 weeks prior to RC and PLND and at 6 weeks post-surgery. Following RC and PLND, assessment of tumour status was performed every 12 weeks up to 2 years, and every 24 weeks thereafter. Randomisation was stratified by tumor stage (T2N0 versus T3/T4aN0 versus T1-T4aN1), PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS ≥10 versus CPS <10) and geographic region (United States versus European Union versus Rest of World).
The median age was 66 years (range: 35 to 85 years); 81% were male; and 80% White. Patients had a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 (78%) or 1 (22%). Fifty-seven percent were CPS ≥10 and 43% CPS <10. Nineteen percent were T2N0, 73% T3/T4aN0 and 8% T1-T4aN1. Ninety percent of patients had urothelial carcinoma histology; 5% had urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation, 3% had urothelial carcinoma with glandular differentiation and 3% had urothelial carcinoma with other variant histology.
In the overall population, 351 (87%) patients in the enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab arm and 361 (90%) patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin arm underwent RC and PLND.
The trial was not designed to isolate the effect of Padcev in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab in each phase (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) of treatment.
The primary efficacy outcome measure was event-free survival (EFS) as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and pathological complete response (pCR) rate as assessed by blinded independent pathology review (BIPR).
The study showed statistically significant improvements in EFS, OS and pCR in patients treated with neoadjuvant and adjuvant enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab compared with neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin. Efficacy results were consistent across all prespecified patient subgroups. The median follow-up time for this study was 30.8 months (range: 0.5 to 53.6 months).
A total of 95 patients aged ≥ 75 years were enrolled in EV-304 (48 in the enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab arm and 47 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin-based chemotherapy arm). Data about efficacy of enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab are limited in this patient population. Data from these patients are too limited to draw any conclusion on efficacy in this population.
Table 6, Figures 1 and 2 summarise the efficacy results for EV-304.
Table 6. Efficacy results in EV-304
| Endpoint | Padcev + pembrolizumab n=405 | Gemcitabine + cisplatin n=403 |
| Event-free survivala |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 87 (21.5) | 146 (36.2) |
| Median in months (95% CI)b | NR (NR, NR) | 48.5 (43.3, NR) |
| Hazard ratioc (95% CI) | 0.53 (0.41, 0.70) |
| 1-sided p-valued | <0.0001 |
| 12-month EFS (%) (95% CI) | 86 (82.1, 89.1) | 75 (70.8, 79.4) |
| 24-month EFS (%) (95% CI) | 79 (74.9, 83.1) | 66 (61.2, 70.8) |
| Overall survival |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 69 (17.0) | 99 (24.6) |
| Median in months (95% CI)b | NR (NR, NR) | NR (NR, NR) |
| Hazard ratioc (95% CI) | 0.65 (0.48, 0.89) |
| 1-sided p-valued | 0.0029 |
| 12-month OS (%) (95% CI) | 93 (90.1, 95.2) | 90 (86.1, 92.2) |
| 24-month OS (%) (95% CI) | 87 (83.2, 89.8) | 81 (77.1, 84.8) |
| Pathological complete response |
| Number of patients with pCR | 226 | 131 |
| pCR rate (%) (95% CI) | 55.8 (50.8, 60.7) | 32.5 (28.0, 37.3) |
| Treatment difference estimate (%) (95% CI)e | 23.4 (16.7, 29.8) |
| 1-sided p-valuee | <0.0001 |
NR = Not reached.
a. EFS is defined as time from randomisation to any of the following events: Radiographic disease progression precluding a curative intent surgery as assessed by BICR prior to RC + PLND; Failure to undergo surgery for participants with residual muscle invasive disease and any radiographic disease present; Gross residual disease left behind at time of surgery (surgeon unable to complete curative intent surgery due to unresectable tumor or newly discovered metastatic disease); Local or distant recurrence post-RC + PLND as assessed by CT or MRI by BICR and/or biopsy – if biopsy is not feasible due to participant safety, CT/MRI alone will be sufficient; Death from any cause.
b. Based on Kaplan-Meier estimates.
c. Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.
d. Based on stratified log-rank test.
e. Based on stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.
Figure 1. Kaplan Meier plot of event-free survival, EV-304
Figure 2. Kaplan Meier plot of overall survival, EV-304
Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)
EV-303 (KEYNOTE-905)
The efficacy of Padcev in combination with pembrolizumab as neoadjuvant treatment and then continued after RC as adjuvant treatment was evaluated in study EV-303 (KEYNOTE‑905), an open‑label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre study that enrolled patients who received neoadjuvant and adjuvant enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab versus RC and PLND. Key eligibility criteria were previously untreated cT2‑T4aN0M0 or cT1-T4aN1M0 MIBC in patients who were ineligible for or declined cisplatin-based chemotherapy and were eligible for RC and PLND, regardless of PD‑L1 status. Patients with active autoimmune disease that required systemic therapy within 2 years of treatment or a medical condition that required immunosuppression were ineligible.
Patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab, neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy or RC and PLND alone. The hypothesis testing was updated to prioritize the comparison of the enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab arm versus the RC and PLND alone arm for EFS; therefore, randomisation to the pembrolizumab monotherapy arm was stopped early. The evaluation of efficacy was based on the comparison between the following treatment arms:
• Enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab (n=170): Neoadjuvant enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes on Days 1 and 8 and neoadjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg over 30 minutes on Day 1 of each 3‑week (21-day) cycle for 3 cycles. Following RC and PLND, adjuvant enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg over 30 minutes on Days 1 and 8 of each 3-week (21-day) cycle for 6 cycles and adjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg over 30 minutes on Day 1 of each 3‑week (21-day) cycle for 14 cycles.
• RC and PLND alone (n=174).
Treatment continued until completion of the treatment, disease progression that precluded RC and PLND, not undergoing or refusal of RC and PLND, disease recurrence in the adjuvant phase or unacceptable toxicity. Assessment of tumour status was performed at baseline, within 5 weeks prior to RC and PLND and at 6 weeks post-surgery. Following RC and PLND, assessment of tumour status was performed every 12 weeks up to 2 years, and every 24 weeks thereafter. Randomisation was stratified by tumor stage (T2N0 versus T3/T4aN0 versus T1‑T4aN1), cisplatin-eligibility (cisplatin‑ineligible versus cisplatin-eligible but declined) and geographic region (United States versus European Union versus Rest of World).
The median age was 73 years (range: 46 to 87 years); 78% were male; and 78% White. Patients had a baseline ECOG performance status of 0-1 (86%) or 2 (14%). Forty-seven percent were CPS ≥10 and 52% CPS <10. Eighteen percent were T2N0, 77% T3/T4aN0 and 5% T1-T4aN1. Forty-one percent of patients had baseline creatinine clearance of ≥60 mL/min, 59% had <60 mL/min but ≥30 mL/min and 0.3% had <30 mL/min, respectively. Ninety-one percent of patients had urothelial carcinoma histology; 4% had urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation, 3% had urothelial carcinoma with glandular differentiation and 2% had urothelial carcinoma with other variant histology.
In the overall population, 149 (88%) patients in the enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab arm and 156 (90%) patients in the RC and PLND alone arm underwent RC and PLND.
Of the patients treated with enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab, 100 patients initiated adjuvant treatment and 43 patients completed all planned cycles.
The primary efficacy outcome measure was EFS as assessed by BICR. Secondary efficacy outcome measures were OS and pCR rate as assessed by blinded independent pathology review (BIPR).
The study showed statistically significant improvements in EFS, OS, and pCR in patients treated with neoadjuvant and adjuvant enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab compared with RC and PLND alone. The median follow-up time for this study was 18.5 months (range: 0.6 to 53.7 months).
Table 7, Figures 3 and 4 summarise the efficacy results for EV-303.
Table 7. Efficacy results in EV-303
| Endpoint | Padcev + pembrolizumab n=170 | RC + PLND alone n=174 |
| Event-free survivala |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 48 (28.2) | 95 (54.6) |
| Median in months (95% CI)b | NR (37.3, NR) | 15.7 (10.3, 20.5) |
| Hazard ratioc (95% CI) | 0.40 (0.28, 0.57) |
| 1-sided p-valued | <0.0001 |
| 12-month EFS (%) (95% CI) | 78 (70.4, 83.5) | 55 (47.2, 62.4) |
| 24-month EFS (%) (95% CI) | 75 (66.9, 80.8) | 39 (31.0, 47.8) |
| Overall survival |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 38 (22.4) | 68 (39.1) |
| Median in months (95% CI)b | NR (NR, NR) | 41.7 (31.8, NR) |
| Hazard ratioc (95% CI) | 0.50 (0.33, 0.74) |
| 1-sided p-valued | 0.0002 |
| 12-month OS (%) (95% CI) | 86 (80.1, 90.7) | 76 (68.5, 81.4) |
| 24-month OS (%) (95% CI) | 80 (72.5, 85.3) | 63 (54.7, 70.4) |
| Pathological complete response |
| Number of patients with pCR | 97 | 15 |
| pCR rate (%) (95% CI) | 57.1 (49.3, 64.6) | 8.6 (4.9, 13.8) |
| Treatment difference estimate (%) (95% CI)e | 48.3 (39.5, 56.5) |
| 1-sided p-valuee | <0.000001 |
NR = Not reached.
a. EFS is defined as time from randomisation to any of the following events: Radiographic disease progression precluding a curative intent surgery as assessed by BICR prior to RC + PLND; Failure to undergo surgery for participants with residual muscle invasive disease and any radiographic disease present; Gross residual disease left behind at time of surgery (surgeon unable to complete curative intent surgery due to unresectable tumor or newly discovered metastatic disease); Local or distant recurrence post-RC + PLND as assessed by CT or MRI by BICR and/or biopsy – if biopsy is not feasible due to participant safety, CT/MRI alone will be sufficient; Death from any cause.
b. Based on Kaplan-Meier estimates.
c. Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.
d. Based on stratified log-rank test.
e. Based on stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.
Figure 3. Kaplan Meier plot of event-free survival, EV-303
Figure 4. Kaplan Meier plot of overall survival, EV-303
Previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer
EV-302 (KEYNOTE-A39)
The efficacy of Padcev in combination with pembrolizumab was evaluated in study EV-302 (KEYNOTE-A39), an open‑label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre study that enrolled 886 patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer who had not received prior systemic therapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Patients that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or patients that received adjuvant chemotherapy following cystectomy were included in the study if recurrence was >12 months from completion of therapy. Patients were considered cisplatin-ineligible if they had at least one of the following criteria: glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 30-59 mL/min, ECOG performance status ≥2, Grade ≥2 hearing loss or New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III heart failure.
Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive either enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab (arm A) or gemcitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) (arm B). Patients in arm A received enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle, followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle approximately 30 minutes after enfortumab vedotin. Patients in arm B received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 administered on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle with cisplatin 70 mg/m2 or carboplatin (AUC = 4.5 or 5 mg/mL/min according to local guidelines) administered on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or completion of the maximum number of treatment cycles (chemotherapy, 6 cycles; pembrolizumab, 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin, no set maximum).
Patients randomised to the gemcitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy arm were permitted to receive maintenance immunotherapy (e.g., avelumab). Randomisation was stratified by cisplatin eligibility (eligible versus ineligible), PD-L1 expression (CPS≥10 versus CPS<10) and presence of liver metastases (present versus absent). PD-L1 expression was based on the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx kit.
Patients were excluded from the study if they had active CNS metastases, ongoing sensory or motor neuropathy Grade ≥2, uncontrolled diabetes defined as haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) ≥8% or HbA1c ≥7% with associated diabetes symptoms, autoimmune disease or a medical condition that required immunosuppression, pneumonitis or other forms of interstitial lung disease.
The median age was 69 years (range: 22 to 91 years); 77% were male; and most were White (67%) or Asian (22%). Patients had a baseline ECOG performance status of 0 (49%), 1 (47%) or 2 (3%). Forty-seven percent of patients had a documented baseline HbA1c of <5.7%. At baseline, 95% of patients had metastatic urothelial cancer and 5% of patients had unresectable urothelial cancer. Seventy-two percent of patients had visceral metastasis at baseline including 22% with liver metastases. Eighty-five percent of patients had urothelial carcinoma (UC) histology, 6% had UC mixed squamous differentiation and 2% had UC mixed other histologic variants. Forty-six percent of patients were cisplatin-ineligible and 54% were cisplatin-eligible at time of randomisation. Of the 877 patients tested who had tissue evaluable for PD-L1 expression, 58% of patients had tumours that expressed PD-L1 with a CPS ≥10 and 42% had tumours that expressed PD-L1 with a CPS <10. The median follow-up time was 17.3 months (range: 0.3 to 37.2 months).
The primary efficacy outcome measures were Overall Survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) as assessed by BICR according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary efficacy outcome measures included Objective Response Rate (ORR) as assessed by BICR according to RECIST v1.1.
The study showed statistically significant improvements in OS, PFS and ORR for patients randomised to enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab as compared to gemcitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy.
Table 8, Figures 5 and 6 summarise the efficacy results for EV-302.
Table 8. Efficacy Results in EV-302
| Endpoint | Padcev + pembrolizumab n=442 | Gemcitabine +platinum n=444 |
| Overall Survival |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 133 (30.1) | 226 (50.9) |
| Median in months (95% CI)a | 31.5 (25.4, -) | 16.1 (13.9, 18.3) |
| Hazard ratiob (95% CI) | 0.468 (0.376, 0.582) |
| 2-sided p-valuec | <0.00001 |
| Progression Free Survivald |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 223 (50.5) | 307 (69.1) |
| Median in months (95% CI)a | 12.5 (10.4, 16.6) | 6.3 (6.2, 6.5) |
| Hazard ratiob (95% CI) | 0.450 (0.377, 0.538) |
| 2-sided p-valuec | <0.00001 |
| Objective Response Rate (CR + PR)d,f |
| Confirmed ORR (%) (95% CI)e | 67.7 (63.1, 72.1) | 44.4 (39.7, 49.2) |
| 2-sided p-valueg | <0.00001 |
| Duration of Responsed,f |
| Median in months (95% CI)a | NR (20.2, -) | 7.0 (6.2, 10.2) |
NR = Not reached.
a. Based on the complementary log-log transformation method (Collett, 1994).
b. Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio <1 favors the enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab arm.
c. Based on stratified log-rank test.
d. Evaluated by BICR using RECIST v1.1.
e. Based on the Clopper-Pearson method (Clopper 1934).
f. Includes only patients with measurable disease at baseline (n=437 for enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab, n=441 for gemcitabine plus platinum). The duration of response was estimated for responders.
g. Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility and liver metastases.
Figure 5. Kaplan Meier plot of overall survival, EV-302
Figure 6. Kaplan Meier plot of progression-free survival, EV-302

Enfortumab vedotin as monotherapy
Previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer
EV-301
The efficacy of Padcev as monotherapy was evaluated in study EV-301, an open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre study that enrolled 608 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who have previously received a platinum-containing chemotherapy and a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD‑L1) inhibitor. The primary endpoint of the study was Overall Survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Objective Response Rate (ORR) [PFS and ORR were evaluated by investigator assessment using RECIST v1.1]. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive either enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg on Days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28‑day cycle, or one of the following chemotherapies as decided by the investigator: docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (38%), paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (36%) or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 (25%) on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle.
Patients were excluded from the study if they had active CNS metastases, ongoing sensory or motor neuropathy ≥Grade 2, known history of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (HIV 1 or 2), active Hepatitis B or C, or uncontrolled diabetes defined as HbA1c ≥8% or HbA1c ≥7% with associated diabetes symptoms.
The median age was 68 years (range: 30 to 88 years), 77% were male, and most patients were White (52%) or Asian (33%). All patients had a baseline ECOG performance status of 0 (40%) or 1 (60%). Ninety-five percent (95%) of patients had metastatic disease and 5% had locally advanced disease. Eighty percent of patients had visceral metastases including 31% with liver metastases. Seventy-six percent of patients had urothelial carcinoma/transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) histology, 14% had urothelial carcinoma mixed and approximately 10% had other histologic variants. A total of 76 (13%) patients had received ≥3 lines of prior systemic therapy. Fifty-two percent (314) of patients had received prior PD-1 inhibitor, 47% (284) had received prior PD-L1 inhibitor, and an additional 1% (9) patients had received both PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. Only 18% (111) of patients had a response to prior therapy with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Sixty-three percent (383) of patients had received prior cisplatin-based regimens, 26% (159) had received prior carboplatin-based regimens, and an additional 11% (65) had received both cisplatin and carboplatin-based regimens.
Table 9 summarises the efficacy results for the EV-301 study, after a median follow‑up time of 11.1 months (95% CI: 10.6 to 11.6).
Table 9. Efficacy results in EV‑301
| Endpoint | Padcev n=301 | Chemotherapy n=307 |
| Overall Survival |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 134 (44.5) | 167 (54.4) |
| Median in months (95% CI) | 12.9 (10.6, 15.2) | 9.0 (8.1, 10.7) |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | 0.702 (0.556, 0.886) |
| 1‑sided p‑value | 0.00142a |
| Progression Free Survivalb |
| Number (%) of patients with events | 201 (66.8) | 231 (75.2) |
| Median in months (95% CI) | 5.6 (5.3, 5.8) | 3.7 (3.5, 3.9) |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | 0.615 (0.505, 0.748) |
| 1‑sided p‑value | <0.00001c |
| Objective Response Rate (CR + PR)b |
| ORR (%) (95% CI) | 40.6 (35.0, 46.5) | 17.9 (13.7, 22.8) |
| 1‑sided p‑value | <0.001d |
| Complete response rate (%) | 4.9 | 2.7 |
| Partial response rate (%) | 35.8 | 15.2 |
| Duration of Response for responders |
| Median in months (95% CI) | 7.4 (5.6, 9.5) | 8.1 (5.7, 9.6) |
a. pre‑determined efficacy boundary = 0.00679, 1‑sided (adjusted by observed deaths of 301)
b. evaluated by investigator assessment using RECIST v1.1
c. pre‑determined efficacy boundary = 0.02189, 1‑sided (adjusted by observed PFS1 events of 432)
d. pre‑determined efficacy boundary = 0.025, 1‑sided (adjusted by 100% information fraction)
Figure 7. Kaplan Meier plot of overall survival, EV-301
Paediatric population
The Licensing Authority has waived the obligation to submit the results of studies with enfortumab vedotin in all subsets of the paediatric population in urothelial cancer (see section 4.2 for information on paediatric use).