Renal safety and clinical outcomes of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab in urothelial carcinoma patients with chronic kidney disease.

P Parth Dhamelia (The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR) Y Yagnapriya Ammakola (2Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, United States) A Atulya Aman Khosla M Mohammad Arfat Ganiyani (6Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, United States) M Manas Pustake (2Texas Tech University El Paso, El Paso, United States) N Nitya Batra (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology & Oncology, Jacksonville, United States) N Nishank Jain (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR) R Rohan Garje (3Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, United States) K Karan Jatwani (7George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington DC, United States)

Abstract

e16564 Background: Urothelial carcinoma (UC) predominantly affects older adults with a high burden of comorbidities, particularly chronic kidney disease (CKD), which affects 30–40% of patients at diagnosis and is more prevalent in advanced disease. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) has become a frontline standard for advanced UC; however, patients with moderate-to-severe CKD were underrepresented in pivotal trials. Enfortumab vedotin targets Nectin-4 expressed in renal tubular epithelium, and immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with immune-mediated nephrotoxicity, raising concern for renal vulnerability in patients with reduced renal reserve. Real-world data evaluating renal and clinical outcomes of EV+P in patients with baseline CKD are limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network, identifying adult patients with UC treated with EV+P between January 2020 and December 2025. Baseline CKD status (stages 3–5; eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) was determined by diagnostic codes and laboratory data obtained prior to EV+P initiation.Patients were stratified into CKD and non-CKD cohorts. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed for demographics, comorbidities, laboratory values, and prior therapies. Outcomes assessed within 180 days of treatment initiation included overall survival (OS), major adverse kidney events (MAKE; composite of acute kidney injury, dialysis initiation or dependence, or death), and selected treatment-related toxicities. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used. Results: After matching, 386 patients were included in each cohort (median age 75 years), with well-balanced baseline characteristics (all post-matching standardized mean differences < 0.1). Prior to matching, patients with CKD had a higher burden of cardiovascular comorbidities. Baseline renal function differed by design, with lower mean eGFR and higher serum creatinine in the CKD cohort. Overall survival was similar between CKD and non-CKD cohorts (HR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69–1.35; p = 0.83), with 180-day survival rates of 79.9% and 79.3%, respectively. Patients with CKD had a higher incidence of MAKE, reflected by lower 180-day event-free survival (49.4% vs 59.1%; HR 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13–1.76; p = 0.002). Treatment-related toxicities were also more frequent in the CKD cohort (HR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05–1.74; p = 0.020), with a higher mean number of toxicity events (4.3 vs 3.4). Conclusions: In this large real-world analysis, EV+P use was associated with comparable short-term overall survival in UC patients with and without CKD but with higher rates of renal events and treatment-related toxicities among patients with baseline CKD. These findings support the use of EV+P in select UC patients with CKD, with close monitoring of renal function and treatment-related toxicity.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (9)

P

Parth Dhamelia

The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR

Y

Yagnapriya Ammakola

2Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, United States

A

Atulya Aman Khosla

M

Mohammad Arfat Ganiyani

6Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, United States

M

Manas Pustake

2Texas Tech University El Paso, El Paso, United States

N

Nitya Batra

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology & Oncology, Jacksonville, United States

N

Nishank Jain

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR

R

Rohan Garje

3Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, United States

K

Karan Jatwani

7George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington DC, United States