News|Articles|February 27, 2026

Disitamab Vedotin Elicits Antitumor Activity in HER2-Expressing Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

Listen

0:00 / 0:00

Key Takeaways

Objective responses were similar across HER2-positive and HER2-low disease, supporting benefit at IHC 1+ through 3+ with median DOR of 5.8–6.9 months.
Survival outcomes were comparable by HER2 level, with median PFS 5.7 months in both cohorts and 12-month OS rates of 65.8% vs 57.7%.
Eligibility required 1–2 prior systemic lines including platinum and progression on last therapy; prior MMAE-based ADCs or HER2-targeted therapy were exclusionary.
Treatment-emergent toxicity was substantial, with grade ≥3 TRAEs in 41.1% and dose delays/reductions in 68.9%/60.9%, driven mainly by neuropathy and fatigue.
Post-disitamab vedotin EV-based regimens retained activity in a subset, suggesting sequencing feasibility; a phase 3 trial is evaluating disitamab vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

Disitamab vedotin elicited response rates over 50% in previously treated HER2-expressing advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Disitamab vedotin showcased consistent clinically meaningful antitumor activity in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma across HER2 expression levels, according to findings from cohorts A and B of the phase 2 RC48G001 study (NCT04879329) presented during the 2026 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.¹

In cohort A, which comprised patients with HER2-positive disease (n = 71; immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+ or IHC 2+ and in situ hybridization [ISH] positive), the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) elicited an objective response rate (ORR) of 54.9%, which included a complete response (CR) rate of 16.9% and a partial response (PR) rate of 38.0%. Moreover, 32.4% of patients had stable disease (SD) and 7.0% experienced disease progression. The median follow-up time in this cohort was 11.3 months (range, 0-31), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 87.3% (95% CI, 77.3%-94.0%); the median duration of response (DOR) was 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.6-9.4).

In cohort B, which included patients with HER2-low disease (n = 76; IHC 2+ and ISH-negative/unevaluable or IHC 1+), disitamab vedotin induced an ORR of 52.6%, which comprised CR and PR rates of 18.4% and 34.2%, respectively; the SD and PD rates were 31.6% and 10.5%. The median follow-up time in this cohort was slightly longer, at 17.1 months (range, 1-40). In this group, the DCR achieved with the ADC was 84.2% (95% CI, 74.0%-91.6%), and the median DOR was 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.7-9.4).

Disitamab Vedotin Demonstrates Durable Activity Across HER2 Levels

Disitamab vedotin induced ORRs above 50% in both HER2-positive and HER2-low advanced urothelial carcinoma, with CRs observed across expression subgroups.

The median PFS and OS were comparable between cohorts, underscoring consistent benefit with the antibody-drug conjugate, irrespective of HER2 level.

The safety profile was manageable and aligned with prior experience, supporting ongoing phase 3 evaluation of disitamab vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were noted to be comparable between the cohorts and consistent across HER2 expression levels. In cohort A, the median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.1-7.1) and the median OS was 20.0 months (95% CI, 12.8-not evaluable). The 12-month PFS and OS rates in this cohort were 19.1% and 65.8%, respectively. In cohort B, the median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.6-6.9) and the median OS was 17.0 months (95% CI, 9.6-23.9). The PFS and OS rates at 12 months in this group were 21.8% and 57.7%, respectively.

“Overall, the global study results are aligned with clinical trials conducted in China^2,3 for disitamab vedotin in previously treated participants with HER2-expressing locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma,” Thomas Powles, MD, MBBS, MRCP, said in a late-breaking presentation of the data. “A phase 3 study [NCT05911295] evaluating disitamab vedotin combined with pembrolizumab [Keytruda] is ongoing⁴ in participants with HER2-expressing locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma.”

Powles is a professor of genitourinary oncology and director of Barts Cancer Centre at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Queen Mary University of London in England.

What was the design of the RC48G001 study evaluating disitamab vedotin?

The global, multicohort, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had received 1 to 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, which included a platinum-containing regimen. Patients must have experienced PD during or following their most recent line of therapy. They were also required to have HER2 status of IHC 1+ or higher per central laboratory testing and an ECOG performance status no higher than 1. If they had previously received MMAE-based ADCs or HER2-directed therapy, they were excluded.

All patients received the ADC intravenously at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Treatment continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators conducted disease assessments every 6 weeks from day 1 of cycle 1 for 72 weeks, and then every 12 weeks until PD.

Moreover, the primary end point of the study is confirmed ORR by blinded independent central review (BICR) and RECIST 1.1 criteria, and select secondary end points include DOR, DCR, and PFS by BICR; OS; and safety.

A total of 293 patients underwent screening, and 151 were enrolled in the study. Of the 151 patients, 73 comprised cohort A and 78 comprised cohort B. In cohort A, all patients received at least 1 dose of treatment, and 12.3% were still on treatment at the time of data cutoff, which was September 12, 2025. The most common reason for going off treatment was PD (65.8%; n = 48/64), and the most common reason for going off study was death (46.6%; n = 34/34). In cohort B, all patients received at least 1 dose of treatment, and only 6.4% of patients remained on treatment at cutoff. Again, the most common reasons for going off treatment and off study were PD (70.5%; n = 55/73) and death (64.1%; n = 50/50), respectively.

The median patient age across cohorts A and B was 69.5 years (range, 28-88), and most patients were male (71.2%; 70.5%). In cohort A, 54.8% of patients had an ECOG performance status of 0, and 43.8% had a status of 1; in cohort B, these rates were 39.7% and 60.3%, respectively. In terms of HER2 IHC score and ISH status, in cohort A, 30.1% of patients had a HER2 IHC score of 2+ with ISH positivity, and 69.9% had a HER2 IHC score of 3+. In cohort B, 28.2% of patients had a HER2 IHC score of 1+, and 71.8% had a HER2 IHC score of 2+ with ISH negativity or not evaluable. Across the cohorts, most patients had localized early-stage disease (65.8%; 75.6%).

In cohort A, 60.3% of patients had received 1 prior line of systemic therapy, and 39.7% had received 2 prior lines; in cohort B, these respective rates were 71.8% and 26.9%. The majority of patients across cohorts A and B had previously received systemic therapy in the metastatic setting (86.3%; 76.9%). Most patients had primary tumor located in the bladder (82.2%; 78.2%) and visceral metastases (68.5%; 82.1%).

What additional efficacy data were presented with disitamab vedotin in this population of patients with HER2-expressing urothelial carcinoma?

“CR was observed in participants primarily with IHC 2+/3+ tumors, those with visceral metastases or lymph node–only disease, and those with or without prior radical surgery,” Powles noted. He added that the response to the ADC was achieved across HER2 expression levels.

Additionally, for both cohorts, a numerically higher ORR was observed in the subgroup with lymph node metastases. “ORR was similar in subgroups with upper vs lower tract primary tumors, 1 to 2 prior lines of therapy, and across HER2 expression levels.”

What were the outcomes of patients who went on to receive subsequent therapy?

In cohort A, half of patients (50.0%) received any subsequent therapy; this included a PD-(L)1 inhibitor (9.4%), chemotherapy (14.1%), enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (Padcev; EV) monotherapy (17.2%), TROP2-targeted ADC (10.9%), enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (P; 6.3%), HER2-directed ADC (6.3%), or other (9.4%). Moreover, 54.8% of those in cohort B received a subsequent therapy. In this group, the most common therapy received was a PD-(L)1 inhibitor (20.5%), followed by chemotherapy (15.1%), TROP2-directed ADC (13.7%), single-agent EV (11.0%), other (11.0%), EV+P (9.6%), and HER2-directed ADC (2.7%).

“Clinical activity was observed with subsequent EV-based therapy after discontinuation of DV,” Powles said. In cohort A, 17.2% of patients received EV monotherapy with best responses of PR (18.2%), SD (18.2%), and PD (27.3%). Moreover, 6.3% of patients in this cohort received EV+P with best response of SD (50.0%). Eleven percent of patients in cohort B received single-agent EV with best responses of PR in 12.5%, SD in 25.0%, and PD in 50.0%. Almost 10% (9.6%) received EV+P and experienced best responses of SD (28.6%) and PD (42.9%).

What was the safety profile of disitamab vedotin in HER2-expressing advanced urothelial cancer?

The ADC was administered for a median of 9 cycles in both cohorts. Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) were experienced by 50.3% of patients across cohorts A and B, and grade 3 or higher TRAEs were experienced by 41.1% of patients. The most common TRAEs experienced across the cohorts were fatigue (grade 1/2, 39.1%; grade ≥ 3, 13.9%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (50.3%; 2.0%), nausea (31.2%; 1.3%), decreased appetite (29.2%; 1.3%), alopecia (27.8%; 0%), diarrhea (23.8%; 4.0%), constipation (16.5%; 0.7%), decreased weight (15.9%; 0.7%), pruritus (11.9%; 0%), arthralgia (8.6%; 2.0%), peripheral motor neuropathy (9.9%; 0.7%), and vomiting (8.0%; 2.6%).

Powles reported that 1 patient in cohort B experienced a grade 1 treatment-emergent toxicity of pneumonitis, and that 1 patient experienced a TRAE that proved fatal, although the cause of death was unknown.

Across the cohorts, adverse effects (AEs) led to dose delays, reductions, or discontinuation for 68.9%, 60.9%, and 16.6% of patients, respectively. The most common AEs to lead to dose reductions of the ADC were peripheral sensory neuropathy (29.1%) and fatigue (11.3%). The AEs that led to discontinuation of disitamab vedotin were peripheral sensory neuropathy (6.0%), fatigue (1.3%), paresthesia (1.3%), and peripheral motor neuropathy (1.3%), which is “a known AE associated with MMAE payload–containing ADCs,” Powles noted.

Disclosures: Dr Powles disclosed receipt of honoraria from Astellas Pharma; AstraZeneca; BMS GmbH & Co. KG; Eisai; Exelixis; Incyte; Ipsen; Johnson & Johnson/Janssen; MashupMD; Merck; Merck Serono; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; and Seagen. He serves in a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma; AstraZeneca; Bristol Myers Squibb; Eisai; Exelixis; Incyte; Ipsen; Johnson & Johnson; MashupMD; Merck; Merck Serono; MSD; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; and Seagen. Research funding was provided by Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. Travel, accommodations, and expenses were covered by AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche.

References

Powles T, Koshkin VS, Rosenberg JE, et al. RC48G001: a phase 2 study of disitamab vedotin in HER2-expressing previously treated advanced UC. J Clin Oncol. 2026;44(suppl 7):LBA631. doi:10.1200/JCO.2026.44.7_suppl.LBA631
Sheng X, Wang L, He Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of disitamab vedotin in patients with Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–positive locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a combined analysis of two phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(12):1391-1402. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.02912
Yan X, Li J, Xu H, et al. Efficacy and safety of DV in HER2-negative and HER2-low locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: results of a phase 2 study. Med. 2025;6(7):100637. doi:10.1016/j.medj.2025.100637
Powles TB, Grande E, Alimohamed N, et al. SGNDV-001: disitamab vedotin with pembrolizumab in HER2-expressing locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Future Oncol. 2025;21(21):2705-2712. doi:10.1080/14796694.2025.2535280