MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Mechanism of action and translation to the clinic of detalimogene voraplasmid (EG-70): A novel, investigational, non-viral immunotherapy for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

2025· article· en· W4407702330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vikram M. Narayan, Yair Lotan, Marie-Line Goulet, Shauna Dauphinee, Daniel Veilleux, Kristine S. Louis, David Lazure, Sarah Stevenson, Darius Bilimoria, Fazmina Zamzameer, Ximin Chen, Sébastien Sublemontier, Sahar Amirkhani, Carlos Fleet, Raj S. Pruthi, Anthony Cheung, James C. Sullivan, Vignesh T. Packiam, Ashish M. Kamat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunotherapyBladder cancerCancerMechanism (biology)Investigational DrugsCancer immunotherapyMechanism of actionOncologyInternal medicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

826 Background: Detalimogene voraplasmid (EG-70) is a novel, investigational, non-integrating, non-viral gene therapy designed to elicit local stimulation of anti-tumor immune response in the bladder while mitigating the risk of systemic toxicities from immune stimulation. It is administered by intravesical instillation (IVI) to eligible patients with NMIBC to drive bladder-localized expression of innate (RIG-I agonists) and adaptive (IL-12) immune regulators and remodel the tumor microenvironment. LEGEND is an ongoing Phase 1/2 study (NCT04752722) investigating the safety and efficacy of detalimogene voraplasmid in bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC. We present preclinical data supporting the mechanism of action of detalimogene voraplasmid, which involves immune cell recruitment, tumor microenvironment remodeling and immune training on neoantigens and tumor clearance. Methods: Preclinical evaluation of detalimogene voraplasmid was conducted in vitro in relevant cell lines and in vivo in an orthotopic syngeneic model of bladder cancer in immunocompetent C57BL/6 mice. Luciferase-expressing MB49 cells were instilled in the bladder on Day 1; following confirmation of tumor engraftment by in vivo bioluminescence imaging on Day 9, mice received two weekly IVIs of mEG-70 (a murine surrogate of EG-70) on Days 10&17. Efficacy of mEG-70 was assessed post-dosing by flow cytometry, MSD immunoassays, immunohistochemistry, bioluminescence in vivo imaging, and overall survival. Animal experimentation was approved by the Institutional Animal Care Committee (IACC) and conducted in accordance with Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines. The Phase 1 component of the LEGEND study evaluated detalimogene voraplasmid in patients with high-risk BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). Results: Immune profiling revealed remodeling of the tumor microenvironment from an immunosuppressive phenotype to a pro-inflammatory milieu supportive of tumor clearance. Accordingly, administration of mEG-70 was associated with marked reduction in tumor burden and improvement in survival in mice. As demonstrated by either bladder or flank tumor cell rechallenge, the anti-tumor immune response in surviving tumor-free mice resulted in durable protection against subsequent tumor re-challenge, and systemic immune memory. In the Phase 1 part of the LEGEND study, detalimogene voraplasmid was generally well tolerated, with an overall complete response rate of 73% in patients with NMIBC with CIS. Conclusions: These preclinical findings demonstrate that detalimogene voraplasmid delivers genetically encoded immunostimulatory payloads locally to the bladder. The mechanism of action described preclinically has been translated into the clinic in the Phase 1 part of the LEGEND study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→