Phase II study of oral APL-1202 plus tislelizumab or tislelizumab alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

793 Background: Interim results of the randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant tislelizumab +/- oral APL-1202 (nitroxoline) revealed promising pathological complete response (pCR) rates and met prespecified thresholds for study expansion (ASCO GU 2024). Here, we report the final primary endpoint analysis of this trial. Methods: Patients with cT2-T4aN0M0 urothelial cancer of the bladder based on local assessment, planned for radical cystectomy (RC), and ineligible for or refusing cisplatin-based chemotherapy were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to APL-1202 plus tislelizumab (A+T) or tislelizumab (T), stratified by PD-L1 expression. Neoadjuvant tislelizumab was administered q3weeks for 3 cycles and APL1202 was administered orally tid. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed (pCR, pT0N0) rate and secondary endpoints included central pathologic response (PaR, < ypT2N0) rate and safety. Results: A total of 103 patients were enrolled; 28 patients declined RC after neoadjuvant treatment (A+T=16, T=12). Consequently, 75 patients remained in the efficacy analysis set (EAS); RC was completed after A+T in 42/43 patients and after T in 31/32 patients. The pCR and PaR results in the EAS are presented in the table. On retrospective central pathology review of baseline TURBT specimens, a large subset of patients were determined to be ineligible due to <cT2 disease (33/75). There was a numerically higher pCR rate in an exploratory analysis of this retrospectively defined ‘protocol eligible’ subset (A+T: 9/22, T: 4/20). Treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 35 (59%) on the A+T arm and 19 (44%) on the T arm. TRAEs (94%) were predominantly ≤ CTCAE grade 2. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant A+T in cisplatin-ineligible patients prior to RC was safe. Evaluation of the efficacy in MIBC is complicated by the large subset of patients enrolled retrospectively determined to have <cT2 disease but pCR rates were similar between groups in the EAS. A signal of higher activity of A+T may be present in PD-L1 “low” tumors supporting further exploration of the immunomodulatory effects of A+T. Evaluation of efficacy is further complicated by a large subset of patients declining RC after neoadjuvant treatment underlining the need for novel bladder-sparing approaches. Clinical trial information: NCT04813107 . pCR rate, pT0N0 PaR rate, < ypT2N0 EAS (n=75) n(%) A+T (n=43) T (n=32) A+T (n=43) T (n=32) All evaluable patients 12 (33)* 7 (26)* 19 (44) 13 (41) PD-L1 h igh 5/18 (28) 4/16 (25) 7/18 (39) 8/16 (50) PD-L1 l ow 7/25 (28) 3/16 (19) 12/25 (48) 5/16 (31) *pCR rate is calculated using UMVUE method when the final sample size of Simon's two-stage is changed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.793
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.01
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Phase II study of oral APL-1202 plus tislelizumab or tislelizumab alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

John P. Sfakianos, Matthew D. Galsky, Xiaoliang Yuan, Hanzhong Li et al.
1 citations
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
2.01
article

Phase II study of oral APL-1202 plus tislelizumab or tislelizumab alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

John P. Sfakianos, Matthew D. Galsky, Xiaoliang Yuan, Hanzhong Li, Hailong Hu, Badrinath R. Konety, Xiaodong Song, Dalin He, Dingwei Ye, Gongxian Wang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

793 Background: Interim results of the randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant tislelizumab +/- oral APL-1202 (nitroxoline) revealed promising pathological complete response (pCR) rates and met prespecified thresholds for study expansion (ASCO GU 2024). Here, we report the final primary endpoint analysis of this trial. Methods: Patients with cT2-T4aN0M0 urothelial cancer of the bladder based on local assessment, planned for radical cystectomy (RC), and ineligible for or refusing cisplatin-based chemotherapy were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to APL-1202 plus tislelizumab (A+T) or tislelizumab (T), stratified by PD-L1 expression. Neoadjuvant tislelizumab was administered q3weeks for 3 cycles and APL1202 was administered orally tid. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed (pCR, pT0N0) rate and secondary endpoints included central pathologic response (PaR, < ypT2N0) rate and safety. Results: A total of 103 patients were enrolled; 28 patients declined RC after neoadjuvant treatment (A+T=16, T=12). Consequently, 75 patients remained in the efficacy analysis set (EAS); RC was completed after A+T in 42/43 patients and after T in 31/32 patients. The pCR and PaR results in the EAS are presented in the table. On retrospective central pathology review of baseline TURBT specimens, a large subset of patients were determined to be ineligible due to <cT2 disease (33/75). There was a numerically higher pCR rate in an exploratory analysis of this retrospectively defined ‘protocol eligible’ subset (A+T: 9/22, T: 4/20). Treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 35 (59%) on the A+T arm and 19 (44%) on the T arm. TRAEs (94%) were predominantly ≤ CTCAE grade 2. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant A+T in cisplatin-ineligible patients prior to RC was safe. Evaluation of the efficacy in MIBC is complicated by the large subset of patients enrolled retrospectively determined to have <cT2 disease but pCR rates were similar between groups in the EAS. A signal of higher activity of A+T may be present in PD-L1 “low” tumors supporting further exploration of the immunomodulatory effects of A+T. Evaluation of efficacy is further complicated by a large subset of patients declining RC after neoadjuvant treatment underlining the need for novel bladder-sparing approaches. Clinical trial information: NCT04813107 . pCR rate, pT0N0 PaR rate, < ypT2N0 EAS (n=75) n(%) A+T (n=43) T (n=32) A+T (n=43) T (n=32) All evaluable patients 12 (33)* 7 (26)* 19 (44) 13 (41) PD-L1 h igh 5/18 (28) 4/16 (25) 7/18 (39) 8/16 (50) PD-L1 l ow 7/25 (28) 3/16 (19) 12/25 (48) 5/16 (31) *pCR rate is calculated using UMVUE method when the final sample size of Simon's two-stage is changed.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(5_suppl)
University of Minnesota (US), Allina Health (US), Nanchang University (CN), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN), Peking Union Medical College Hospital (CN), Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University (CN), Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University (CN), Tongji Hospital (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (CN), Tisch Cancer Institute, Tianjin Medical University (CN), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
2.01
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.