Health-related quality of life and pain in a phase 3 study of [<sup>177</sup>Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in taxane-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PSMAfore).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5003 Background: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) prolonged radiographic progression-free survival vs change of androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) in taxane-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in PSMAfore (NCT04689828). We now present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain outcomes at second interim analysis. Methods: Eligible patients had mCRPC, were candidates for change of ARPI after progression on one prior ARPI, and had ≥1 PSMA-positive and no exclusionary PSMA-negative metastatic lesions by [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. Ineligible patients were candidates for PARP inhibition or had received prior systemic radiotherapy, immunotherapy or chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to open-label 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq/6 weeks; 6 cycles) or ARPI change (abiraterone/enzalutamide). Patients with confirmed radiographic progression on ARPI change could cross over to 177Lu-PSMA-617. Secondary endpoints included time to worsening (TTW) in self-reported HRQoL (FACT-P, EQ-5D-5L) and pain (BPI-SF), defined as a composite of score worsening (prespecified thresholds), clinical progression (including new anti-cancer treatment) or death. Post hoc analyses of TTW in FACT-P and BPI-SF excluded clinical progression and death. The study was not powered for these endpoints and type I error was not controlled. Results: We randomized 468 patients (234/arm) with a median age of 72 years (range, 43–94). Median duration of exposure was 8.4 months for 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 6.5 months for ARPI change. 177Lu-PSMA-617 delayed TTW in FACT-P, EQ-5D-5L and BPI-SF scales and subscales vs ARPI change (Table). Results were similar in non-composite analyses. Incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation for 177Lu-PSMA-617 and ARPI change were 34% vs 44%, 20% vs 28% and 5.7% vs 5.2%, respectively. Conclusions: 177Lu-PSMA-617 delayed TTW in self-reported pain and HRQoL vs change of ARPI in taxane-naïve patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT04689828 . [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".