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.
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.
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.
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.
Data from the CAPItello trial showed a significant number of patients with PTEN deficiency experienced radiological progression without a corresponding PSA increase. This challenges the standard reliance on PSA for monitoring in high-risk prostate cancer and suggests a need for more frequent, personalized imaging protocols to detect progression earlier.
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.
Experts believe molecular tests like Decipher and PTEN status are superior to simply counting bone lesions for guiding treatment. While not yet standard practice for all decisions, this represents a significant shift towards using underlying tumor biology to determine therapy, like adding docetaxel.
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.
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.