Evidence Hub

Efficacy of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 with or without ARPIs for the treatment of mCRPC: VISION secondary analysis

O. Yazdanpanah, J. Calais, Kim N. Chi, J. D. de Bono, Sheila Deymann, G. El-Haddad, Ken Herrmann, K. Fizazi et al.

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2025

617 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 617 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free