Home
Abstract
My Abstract(s)
Login
ePosters
Back
Final Presentation Format
Moderated Poster Abstract
Eposter Presentation
Eposter in PDF Format
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/d4d723e8c631568987e4ad53128c7968.pdf
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
Eposter in Image Format
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/cce362c7a5f6dc43a47e7d52e06f2c17.png
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
Presentation Date / Time
Submission Status
Submitted
Abstract
Abstract Title
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of antibody-drug conjugates in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis
Presentation Type
Moderated Poster Abstract
Manuscript Type
Meta Analysis / Systematic Review
Abstract Category *
Oncology: Bladder and UTUC
Author's Information
Number of Authors (including submitting/presenting author) *
4
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Country
China
Co-author 1
Junwei Ren jorwindoctor@163.com West China Hospital, Sichuan University Department of Urology/Institute of Urology Chengdu China *
Co-author 2
Yunfei Xiao xiaoyunfeix@163.com West China Hospital, Sichuan University Department of Urology/Institute of Urology Chengdu China -
Co-author 3
Yunjin Bai baiyunjin@scu.edu.cn West China Hospital, Sichuan University Department of Urology/Institute of Urology Chengdu China -
Co-author 4
Ping Han hanping@scu.edu.cn West China Hospital, Sichuan University Department of Urology/Institute of Urology Chengdu China -
Co-author 5
Co-author 6
Co-author 7
Co-author 8
Co-author 9
Co-author 10
Co-author 11
Co-author 12
Co-author 13
Co-author 14
Co-author 15
Co-author 16
Co-author 17
Co-author 18
Co-author 19
Co-author 20
Abstract Content
Introduction
Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a challenging malignancy with suboptimal outcomes following surgical treatment. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), a novel class of targeted therapies, have demonstrated promising efficacy. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ADCs in UC are still lacking. Limited data are available from prospective non-randomized studies and meta-analyses. In recent years, with the advancement of ADC research, more high-quality clinical trials have been published. This study aims to summarize the existing literature and assess the efficacy and safety of ADCs in UC patients, particularly those with advanced disease.
Materials and Methods
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify prospective single-arm or multi-arm clinical studies evaluating ADC monotherapy in UC. Studies involving non-ADC interventions, combination therapies, non-English publications, or those without relevant outcome data were excluded. Key efficacy and safety outcomes, including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted. An updated meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the clinical impact of ADCs in UC comprehensively.
Results
A total of 16 studies comprising 1,594 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding tumor response, the pooled ORR was 40% (95% CI: 36–45%), and the DCR was 74% (95% CI: 70–78%). Survival analysis showed a median PFS of 5.9 months (95% CI: 5.09–6.7 months) and a median OS of 12.91 months (95% CI: 11.9–13.92 months). The 6-month PFS and OS rates were 46% (95% CI: 40–51%) and 82% (95% CI: 77–87%), respectively, while the 1-year PFS and OS rates were 20% (95% CI: 16–25%) and 55% (95% CI: 51–60%), respectively. Regarding safety, the overall incidence of TRAEs was high, with 52% (95% CI: 46–58%) of patients experiencing grade III or higher TRAEs. The most common TRAEs included alopecia (any grade: 44% [95% CI: 42–47%]; grade III or higher: 0% [95% CI: 0–0%]), decreased appetite (any grade: 35% [95% CI: 29–42%]; grade III or higher: 2% [95% CI: 1–3%]), dysgeusia (any grade: 37% [95% CI: 25–49%]; grade III or higher: 0% [95% CI: 0–1%]), fatigue (any grade: 37% [95% CI: 31–44%]; grade III or higher: 5% [95% CI: 4–7%]), nausea (any grade: 35% [95% CI: 25–47%]; grade III or higher: 1% [95% CI: 0–2%]), peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade: 39% [95% CI: 31–48%]; grade III or higher: 2% [95% CI: 0–5%]), and pruritus (any grade: 28% [95% CI: 22–34%]; grade III or higher: 2% [95% CI: 1–3%]).
Conclusions
This meta-analysis demonstrates that ADCs have clinical utility in the treatment of advanced UC, providing strong support for their adoption in clinical practice. Compared to previous studies, our findings further enhance the robustness of existing evidence. Future high-quality RCTs are needed to validate the efficacy of ADCs in different UC immunophenotypes and explore potential combination therapy strategies.
Keywords
Antibody-drug conjugates, ADCs, Urothelial carcinoma,Meta-analysis
Figure 1
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/f998645856e1c74603077ff649d0adde.png
Figure 1 Caption
Forest plot of pooled efficacy outcomes.
Figure 2
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/a5f6dc62ccd30ea3771f65d945e70650.png
Figure 2 Caption
Forest plot of pooled safety outcomes.
Figure 3
Figure 3 Caption
Figure 4
Figure 4 Caption
Figure 5
Figure 5 Caption
Character Count
2655
Vimeo Link
Presentation Details
Session
Free Paper Moderated Poster(01): Oncology Bladder UTUC (A)
Date
Aug. 14 (Thu.)
Time
14:56 - 15:00
Presentation Order
20