What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin to tislelizumab plus disitamab vedotin in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

June 14, 2026BMC Cancer0 citationsOpen Access

Toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin versus tislelizumab-based combination in advanced urothelial carcinoma: a real-world comparative study

TWTianwei WangXuzhou Medical College XJXi JiangTongji University

Key Points

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin to tislelizumab plus disitamab vedotin in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Retrospective study analyzing clinical data from patients treated with either therapy from August 2021 to July 2025.
Evaluation of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response according to RECIST criteria, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).
No significant differences in OS or PFS between Group A (toripalimab) and Group B (tislelizumab).
Group A showed a lower disease progression rate (9.30% vs. 28.95%) and a higher disease control rate (90.70% vs. 71.05%).
Tislelizumab-based therapy had higher incidences of dermatitis, hypokalemia, anemia, and hypocalcemia.

Abstract

Abstract Background The optimal PD-1 inhibitor to combine with disitamab vedotin in advanced urothelial carcinoma remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin versus tislelizumab plus disitamab vedotin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Methods In this retrospective study, clinical data were collected from patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with a PD-1 inhibitor combined with disitamab vedotin between August 2021 and July 2025. Patients received either toripalimab-based (Group A) or tislelizumab-based therapy (Group B). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Tumor response was assessed according to RECIST criteria, including complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD), as well as objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were graded according to standard criteria. Results No significant differences were observed between the two groups in OS or PFS. The ORR and overall tumor response profiles were comparable between Group A and Group B. However, Group A demonstrated a lower rate of disease progression (9.30% vs. 28.95%) and a higher DCR (90.70% vs. 71.05%) compared with Group B. In terms of safety, the tislelizumab-based regimen was associated with significantly higher incidences of dermatitis, hypokalemia, anemia, and hypocalcemia. Conclusions In this real-world study, toripalimab plus disitamab vedotin and tislelizumab plus disitamab vedotin demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Although no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed, the toripalimab-based regimen was associated with a lower rate of disease progression, a higher disease control rate, and a more favorable safety profile. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to further validate these findings.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper