MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Sasanlimab in combination with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in BCG-naive, high-risk non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC): Event-free survival (EFS) subgroup analyses based on disease stage from the CREST study.

2025· article· en· W4410821794 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Powles, Neal D. Shore, Jens Bedke, Matthew D. Galsky, Joan Palou, Hailong Hu, Évanguelos Xylinas, Javier Puente, Jason Hafron, Michele Lodde, Alketa Hamzaj, Julia Brinkmann, Anna Maria Calella, Rossano Cesari, Jennifer Vermette, Caimiao Wei, Gary D. Steinberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerOncologyStage (stratigraphy)Bacillus (shape)DiseaseInternal medicineCancerMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4517 Background: Sasanlimab in combination with BCG (induction [IND] and maintenance [MNT]) significantly improved investigator (INV)-assessed EFS vs BCG (IND and MNT) and had a manageable safety profile in patients (pts) with BCG-naive, high-risk NMIBC, according to the primary analysis results from the phase 3 CREST study. Here, we report exploratory EFS subgroup analyses not previously presented based on disease stage at randomization from Arms A and C. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive sasanlimab in combination with BCG (IND and MNT; Arm A), sasanlimab in combination with BCG (IND; Arm B), or BCG (IND and MNT; Arm C). To assess the impact on efficacy of carcinoma in situ (CIS) and T1 tumors at baseline, post hoc INV-assessed EFS analyses were conducted for the comparison of Arm A vs Arm C. EFS was defined as time from randomization to recurrence of high-grade disease, progression of disease, persistence of CIS (for patients with CIS at randomization), or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. Results: At the data cutoff date (Dec 02, 2024), the median duration of follow-up for EFS was 36.4 and 36.7 months for Arm A and Arm C, respectively. A total of 176 pts with CIS (with or without papillary tumors) were in Arms A and C, 102 of whom had CIS without papillary tumors. A total of 398 pts with T1 tumor were in Arms A and C, 342 of whom had T1 tumor without CIS (Table). Three-year landmark EFS subgroup analyses not previously presented are reported in the table. For patients with CIS, with or without concomitant papillary tumors, the 3-year EFS rate was 83.0% in Arm A and 71.8% in Arm C. For patients with T1 tumors, with or without CIS, the 3-year EFS rate was 81.3% in Arm A and 72.2% in Arm C. Conclusions: Sasanlimab in combination with BCG (IND and MNT) improved EFS outcomes in the overall population and in the subgroups of pts with BCG-naive, high-risk NMIBC who had CIS or T1 tumors at randomization. This post hoc analysis further supports the potential of sasanlimab in combination with BCG as a practice-changing treatment in pts with aggressive disease. Clinical trial information: NCT04165317 . Arm A(N=352) Arm C(N=351) HR (95% CI) Arm A vs Arm C n (%) 36-mo EFS rate, % (95% CI) n (%) 36-mo EFS rate, % (95% CI) All pts 82.1 (77.4-85.9) 74.8 (69.7, 79.2) 0.68 (0.489-0.941) a Tumor type at randomization CIS with and without papillary tumors 88(25.0) 83.0 (72.9-89.6) 88(25.1) 71.8 (60.4-80.5) 0.53(0.285-0.982) CIS without papillary tumors 52(14.8) 81.0 (66.6-89.7) 50(14.2) 75.4 (59.9-85.6) 0.52 (0.233-1.165) T1 with and without CIS 204(58.0) 81.3 (74.7-86.4) 194(55.3) 72.2 (65.0-78.2) 0.63 (0.406-0.963) T1 without CIS 178 (50.6) 79.6 (72.1-85.2) 164(46.7) 72.5 (64.6-78.9) 0.70 (0.446-1.109) a Stratified HR; all other HR unstratified.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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