I think you're a wee bit older than me (57), you might be able to get by with 3 cycles of chemo and then try the nubeqa again. Could be a compromise that extends the runway. Your PSA is still low..if you have any mets that are treatment worthy, you could add that also.
When your PSA reaches over 2.0, or the PSADT is less than 9 months (on 3 PSA tests over 0.1) you can switch to docetaxel+enzalutamide as in the PRESIDE trial:
TA - I took Daralutamide for about 6 months before it failed. I then went into the SPLASH trial which helped for about about 6 months and now PSA is rising so i am probably headed for Taxotere, Will Xtandi be provided even though Nubequa failed?
No. PSMAfore compared Pluvicto to a second second-line hormonal (after failing one), and showed no survival advantage. (Both groups were taxane-naive.)
Have you looked into BAT? Most MO would probably not assist. I met with Sam Denmeade at Johns Hopkins a year ago. He said I would be a good candidate for it. I indeed turned out to be a responded. With that news, my local MO is now assisting me. I use "Propionate" purchased over seas. Denmeade uses Cyponanate which has a much longer half life. Here is a brief vd. urotoday.com/video-lectures...
You might also consider Provenge. I had it approximately five years ago and felt I got lots of bang for the buck, SE-wise. It was easily tolerated. Good luck with your treatment, whatever you decide!
if you’d consider changing from darolutamide to some other ARI, you can alternately consider Lu177. PSMAfore has recent results showing this is more effective than switching ARIs for patients like you that are chemo-naive:
This seems contradictory to TAs analysis of PSMAfore (above).? Can someone interpret? Is it that this trial showed difference to radiographic progression but no or little difference to OS? Is that not a gain worth having That's a genuine question btw. There is a lot of hope and faith in Pluvicto for obvious reasons. But I am thinking that we need to keep the reality of the current trial data in mind especially when one has to pay out of pocket (in UK) and other tried and tested options are still available. I would like to read about trial endpoints, what they might mean for how pts feel and what we should be using to judge trial outcomes. Thanks.
Hi Proflac - I’m just summarizing my read of the article. You might read the interview, if you haven’t yet, and see if I’m paraphrasing badly. Here are Sartor’s key takeaways:
177Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged rPFS vs ARPI change in taxane-naive patients with PSMA+ mCRPC
Secondary and exploratory endpoints, including PSA response, objective response rate, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and time to worsening in health related quality of life and pain, also favored 177Lu-PSMA-617
The prespecified crossover-adjusted OS trended favorably for 177Lu-PSMA-617, given that the 84.2% crossover rate may have confounded the intention to treat analysis; OS data collection is ongoing
However, for those who crossed over from ARPI to Lu-177: …there was a trend favoring 177Lu-PSMA-617, but no statistical difference in OS between the groups.
So my interpretation is a patient choosing RLT (i.e. Lu177) over a change of ARPI is better off wrt RPFS, ORR, etc. That was, it seemed to me, a useful answer to the OP…
…but so far there is no clear OS advantage (there is, so far, only a trend). So, to answer what I think is your question: for me - yes, better RFPS/etc are useful goals wrt quality of life, even if this may not mean a prolonged OS. Seems like a personal decision.
But, I wasn’t inferring anything about RLT vs chemo; as I understand it, this trial did not make that comparison, it simply selected a population that was taxane-naive.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.