The investigator-led PLUTO trial found docetaxel chemotherapy provided a better overall survival benefit than lutetium in first-line mCRPC. This result directly confronts the common clinical bias against chemotherapy ("chemophobia"), proving that older treatments can still outperform newer targeted agents and should not be prematurely abandoned.

A key hypothesis for why docetaxel showed better overall survival than lutetium in the PLUTO trial is that patients treated with lutetium upfront may become unfit for subsequent chemotherapy. This highlights a critical factor in trial design: the planned therapeutic sequence and a patient's ability to receive later-line treatments significantly impact survival outcomes.

Experts admit to preferring docetaxel chemotherapy over lutetium for symptomatic mCRPC patients primarily because it 'feels' more aggressive and is logistically faster to administer. This decision is based on perception and convenience rather than strong clinical evidence comparing the agents in this specific context.

Lutetium faces criticism for its fixed 6-cycle regimen, which may be suboptimal as the PSMA target diminishes with ADT. However, this critique is rarely applied to other drugs like PARP inhibitors, which are given until progression. This highlights a double standard and the tension between using a fixed regimen for regulatory approval versus finding the optimal dose in practice.

The PR21 trial showed better overall survival for docetaxel followed by Lutetium, despite similar progression-free survival. The likely reason is not drug superiority but patient behavior: a higher percentage of patients complete the second therapy when starting with chemo, highlighting how treatment fatigue significantly impacts survival.

Clinicians may be biased towards lutetium-PSMA because it causes significant PSA drops, which radium-223 does not. This observable metric may not reflect superior overall efficacy, as radium's survival benefit is proven and it may even have unique synergistic potential with drugs like enzalutamide through different biological pathways.

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.

The ongoing Phase III trial for Sigvotatug Vedotin compares it against docetaxel, the current standard for second-line NSCLC. Docetaxel is known for modest efficacy and significant side effects, creating a major opportunity for the new drug to demonstrate superiority and rapidly become the new clinical standard.

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.