A meta-analysis of over 9,500 patients in major prostate cancer trials, including the pivotal VISION and PSMA-4 trials for radioligand therapy, shows significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic patients. This creates a critical evidence gap when applying these therapies to diverse real-world populations.
Related Insights
The negative ANSA-RAD trial, when contrasted with the positive STAMPEDE trial, demonstrates that patient selection is paramount in adjuvant therapy. The difference in outcomes was driven by risk definition, not the drug. This reinforces that "negative" trials are clinically vital for defining which patient populations do not benefit, preventing widespread overtreatment.
After years of successfully intensifying hormonal therapy, the focus in prostate cancer is shifting toward de-intensification. Researchers are exploring intermittent therapy for top responders and developing non-hormonal approaches like radioligands to spare patients the chronic, life-altering side effects of permanent castration.
The control arm in the EMBARK study was blinded to PSA results, preventing physicians from intervening with standard-of-care AR antagonists at PSA progression. This design likely delayed subsequent effective therapies, making the control arm underperform and potentially exaggerating the overall survival benefit of the experimental arms.
The FDA is predicted to approve new PARP inhibitors from trials like AMPLITUDE only for BRCA-mutated patients, restricting use to where data is strongest. This contrasts with the EMA's potential for broader approvals or denials. This highlights the diverging regulatory philosophies that create different drug access landscapes in the US and Europe.
In the AMPLITUDE trial, only 16% of high-risk metastatic prostate cancer patients received docetaxel, despite it being allowed and indicated by disease characteristics. This suggests a real-world "chemophobia" or physician bias towards newer targeted therapies, even within a clinical trial setting.
Even when testing drugs in heavily pre-treated patients, clinical trials incorporate subtle biological selection criteria. For instance, the COMPASS trial excludes patients with visceral metastases, a tactic to enrich for a population more likely to respond and avoid the most aggressive disease subtypes.
Three 2025 trials (AMPLITUDE, PSMA-addition, CAPItello) introduced personalized therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. However, significant benefits were confined to narrow subgroups, like BRCA-mutated patients. This suggests future success depends on even more stringent patient selection, not broader application of targeted agents.
While Lutetium shows promise in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, experts raise concerns about potential late-effect toxicities for patients surviving many years. This contrasts with docetaxel, where toxicity is acute and resolves after treatment, highlighting an unknown long-term risk-benefit profile for new radioligand therapies.
Xevinapant's Phase III failure, after a promising Phase II trial, was partially attributed to the broader, more heterogeneous patient population. This group experienced greater toxicity than the Phase II cohort, suggesting early-phase safety profiles may not scale, ultimately compromising the efficacy of the entire treatment regimen.
The PSMA edition trial's fixed six-cycle Lutetium regimen, designed nearly a decade ago, is now seen as suboptimal. This illustrates how the long duration of clinical trials means their design may not reflect the latest scientific understanding (e.g., adaptive dosing) by the time results are published and debated.