MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of <sup>177</sup> Lu-PSMA-617 with or without ARPIs for the treatment of mCRPC: VISION secondary analysis.

2025· article· en· W4407698713 on OpenAlexaff
Omid Yazdanpanah, Jérémie Calais, Kim N., Johann S. de Bono, Sheila Deymann, Ghassan El‐Haddad, Ken Herrmann, Karim Fizazi, Daniel Gallego González, Ayşe Tuba Karagülle Kendi, Bernd J. Krause, Michael J. Morris, James Nagarajah, Luke T. Nordquist, Alton Oliver Sartor, Kambiz Rahbar, Scott T. Tagawa, Nitin Vaishampayan, Ye Yue, Arash Rezazadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

121 Background: In the Phase 3 VISION trial, treatment with the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) + protocol-permitted standard of care (SoC) significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; 8.7 vs 3.4 months [mo]) and overall survival (OS; 15.3 vs 11.3 mo) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) vs SoC alone. However, it is unclear how the addition of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) affected 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment outcomes. Here we compared the efficacy and safety of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in patients treated with vs without concomitant ARPIs. Methods: In VISION, adult patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC previously treated with ≥1 prior ARPI and 1–2 taxane chemotherapy regimens were randomized 2:1 to receive 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W, 4–6 cycles) + SoC (which included ARPIs) vs SoC alone. In this secondary analysis, we assessed baseline characteristics, OS, rPFS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, duration of PSA response, PSA-PFS, and safety among patients in the intervention arm who were treated with vs without concomitant ARPIs. Results: In total, 289 patients were treated with concomitant ARPIs and 262 patients were not (N=551). Imbalances between the groups were observed in some baseline characteristics: patients treated with concomitant ARPIs were younger, had lower ECOG performance scores, lower mean PSA and lactate dehydrogenase levels, and fewer prior taxane chemotherapy regimens. Baseline mean standardized [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 uptake values and mean hemoglobin levels were well-balanced. A statistically significant difference in median OS was observed in patients treated with concomitant ARPIs vs those without (17.8 vs 12.4 mo; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58–0.89; nominal P=0.001). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for rPFS, PSA response rate, duration of PSA response or PSA-PFS. The proportion of adverse events reported was similar in patients with or without concurrent ARPI, except for the number of adverse events leading to interruption of best supportive care/SoC, which was higher in patients treated with concurrent ARPIs. Conclusions: OS was significantly different in patients treated with concomitant ARPIs vs those without, while other efficacy endpoints were not. No new safety signals were observed for 177 Lu-PSMA-617 with concomitant ARPI. These findings may be confounded by varied exposure to ARPIs, or differing patient characteristics; patients who received concomitant ARPIs may represent a more favorable treatment population than those who did not. These findings should be considered as hypothesis-generating, and a multivariate analysis has been planned to ascertain the influence of these potential biases. Clinical trial information: NCT03511664 .

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207