MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412521280 · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2025.07.003

Final overall survival and safety analyses of the phase III PSMAfore trial of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus change of androgen receptor pathway inhibitor in taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

2025· article· en· W4412521280 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karim Fizazi, K.N. Chi, Neal D. Shore, Ken Herrmann, Johann S. de Bono, Daniel Castellano, Josep M. Piulats, Aude Fléchon, Xin Wei, Hakim Mahammedi, Guilhem Roubaud, Mark T. Fleming, T Haas, Samson Ghebremariam, T N Kreisl, S. Rajagopalan, Oliver Sartor, Michael J. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Cancer InstituteEMD SeronoGenentechSierra OncologyAmgenSiemens HealthineersAstellas PharmaEisaiAstraZenecaInvitaeMacroGenicsY-mAbs TherapeuticsUroGen PharmaIpsenBeiGeneNational Institutes of HealthMenarini Silicon BiosystemsVertex PharmaceuticalsBoston Scientific CorporationSanofiEndocyteNovartisCardinal HealthPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamideProstate cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioProgression-free survivalAbiraterone acetateTaxaneAdverse effectOncologyRandomized controlled trialUrologyAndrogen receptorConfidence intervalAndrogen deprivation therapyChemotherapyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In PSMAfore, [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) prolonged radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with a favourable safety profile, versus a change in androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). We report the final overall survival (OS) analysis and updated safety data. Patients and methods PSMAfore (NCT04689828) was an open-label, international, phase III trial. Patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC who had experienced disease progression once on a previous ARPI and were candidates for ARPI change were randomized 1 : 1 to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or ARPI change to abiraterone or enzalutamide. Crossover from ARPI change to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 was allowed after centrally confirmed radiographic progression. Endpoints included rPFS (primary), OS (key secondary), and safety (secondary). Results Patients were randomized to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or ARPI change ( n = 234 each): 141/234 participants (60.3%) randomized to ARPI change crossed over (75.4% of those with centrally confirmed radiographic progression). The median OS was 24.48 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.55-28.94 months] with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 versus 23.13 months (95% CI 19.61-25.53 months) with ARPI change [hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.72-1.14, P = 0.20] based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle; the crossover-adjusted OS HR by inverse probability of censoring weighting modelling was 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.91). For 177 Lu-PSMA-617 versus ARPI change, exposure-adjusted incidences of grade ≥3 and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were 60.8 versus 85.1 and 32.5 versus 49.9 per 100 patient-treatment years, respectively. Dry mouth occurred in 135/227 participants (59.5%; 2/227 grade ≥3) and anaemia in 62/227 (27.3%; 14/227 grade ≥3) in the 177 Lu-PSMA-617 arm. Conclusions OS analyses did not show a statistically significant difference between the 177 Lu-PSMA-617 and ARPI arms based on the ITT principle; results were likely confounded by the high rate of crossover. The safety profile of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 was favourable with no new safety signals identified.

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)0.004
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations26
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207