Clarity Pharmaceuticals gains FDA fas... - Advanced Prostate...

Advanced Prostate Cancer

21,849 members27,366 posts

Clarity Pharmaceuticals gains FDA fast-track status for advanced prostate cancer 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA imaging -hopefully soon also for treatment

Maxone73 profile image
20 Replies

As you know by now, I am following this technology pretty closely as it is very promising and their clinical studies produced some impressive results (one guy became a complete responder after two infusions). This fast tracking is for using the molecule as tracer, but I hope it will pave the way for a fast-track status for the therapeutic use as well!

smallcaps.com.au/clarity-ph...

If you want to know more about the therapeutic use, just search the site for 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA

or go here: targetedonc.com/view/first-...

Written by
Maxone73 profile image
Maxone73
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
20 Replies
j-o-h-n profile image
j-o-h-n

To you and to all,

This has nothing to do with the subject/contents of your post, but why do we use the word "pretty" as an informal adverb in English/American? E.g. "I am following this technology pretty closely." Sounds out of whack... but what the hell do I know? Pretty stupid post on my part.....I see you guys wearing the white coats and carrying those nets.....

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n

Maxone73 profile image
Maxone73 in reply to j-o-h-n

you are pretty much right!

dhccpa profile image
dhccpa in reply to j-o-h-n

It's a pretty good post. Not beautiful, though. We don't use the nets until the latest point possible. Could happen anytime...

j-o-h-n profile image
j-o-h-n in reply to dhccpa

I'm pretty sure it will be pretty soon....

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n

spencoid2 profile image
spencoid2 in reply to j-o-h-n

You are pretty much right but it you want to be even righter, check out this video. It should pretty much make you a pretty good user of pretty as an adverb. Adjectives are for dummies. Here is the real deal :

youtube.com/watch?v=UsPE2bC...

j-o-h-n profile image
j-o-h-n in reply to spencoid2

I must admit "she is pretty".........(Thanks)

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n

billyboy3 profile image
billyboy3

keep us up to date please !!! Sounds great

CousinGrandpa profile image
CousinGrandpa

I was in the clinical trial for 64 Cu. It went well, and my doc was very hopeful for the future use as a therapeutic treatment.

Maxone73 profile image
Maxone73 in reply to CousinGrandpa

Great news!

pakb profile image
pakb

Yes- keep us posted with these findings! I'll be following. Thanks for sharing.

Cenerus profile image
Cenerus

Isn't 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA just the imaging isotope for this treatment? I think that 67Cu-SAR-bisPSMA is the actual treatment molecule. The way I read the papers from Clarity is that they use the 64Cu as an imaging agent to determine the patient specific uptake potential of the actual therapeutic 67Cu. If the uptake of 64Cu is really low then there is little reason to give a patient the 67Cu. It's the whole concept of how a theranostic is meant to work. You use a one isotope variant to screen patients and the other to treat. This way you avoid unnecessary toxicity if the patient isn't really a candidate for treatment. It's great that 64Cu is being fast tracked, But I'd really like to see 67Cu get further along in trials so it can make it to market ASAP. Even better is that Clarity is now working on an Actinium version of their drug. That one may really prove to be effective at inducing a durable remission whereas the 67Cu may suffer from a similar problem that Pluvicto has of not being durable because the isotopes involved are just Beta emitters.

Maxone73 profile image
Maxone73 in reply to Cenerus

From what I understood it’s a matter of quantity and frequency (the infusion is repeated multiple times for therapy), but yes I would say it’s the same molecule!

Cenerus profile image
Cenerus in reply to Maxone73

I read the article in the link. This is indeed the diagnostic version of the drug, not the therapeutic version. Clarity has two distinct versions of this product. The only difference as far as I can tell is that the diagnostic version uses Copper 64 in its chelator and the therapeutic version uses Copper 67. Copper 64 emits positrons that are appropriate for PET imaging. Copper 67 is a Beta emitter that is appropriate for therapy. The cool think about this product is that it can image cancer using the same molecule that would be used to attack it. However only one of the two copper isotopes is used at a time. So first you use Copper 64 to image the cancer and determine if the patient is a good candidate for the copper 67 version that kills cancer. If the patient shows good uptake of the imaging version, then they dose the patient with the copper 67 version and kill some cancer.

This drug has other positives besides the diagnostic ability. It uses a double attachment to the target cancer cell so the molecule hangs on longer while the isotope does its thing. It also washes out of the blood slower than Pluvicto, so it stays in the blood stream longer and has more chance of getting to the tumors which typically have poor vascularization (blood supply). Also it's chelator (the part that holds the radioactive isotope) is stronger than on Pluvicto and this helps prevent the isotope from being lost into the blood stream and winding up in places it shouldn't go. All of this combines to make Clarity's drug more effective against PCa than Pluvicto.

Maxone73 profile image
Maxone73 in reply to Cenerus

Great catch! But they should name the therapeutic one Cu67 then!

Cenerus profile image
Cenerus in reply to Maxone73

They did. The thing that is getting fast tracked in the article is the Cu64 diagnostic version. It looks like it is on its own separate approval path from the therapeutic version. Makes sense as a diagnostic agent and a therapeutic agent have different goals and different toxicities. It looks like the diagnostic version Cu64 is already in a phase III trial. So we may see it on the market in the next year or two. Unfortunately the therapeutic version is just going to phase II so we're probably years out on that one. But to me I'm more interested in their Actinium version which is just entering phase I trails now. I suspect that one may be a game changer with its isotope and molecular structure. it could be something that as long as the toxicity profile isn't insane could really get after micrometastatic disease in a big way.

Maxone73 profile image
Maxone73 in reply to Cenerus

ADT is starting to kill my brain I am afraid. It is 67Cu and I even wrote about it more than once 🫠🤦‍♂️

spencoid2 profile image
spencoid2

I contacted the study coordinator and it looks like they are using very small numbers of people and it also looks like things are going slowly. I am supposed to resume pluvicto but was hoping this would be ready soon. Looks like there will be too long a delay and I can not wait for clarity to get their shit together soon enough.

Cenerus profile image
Cenerus in reply to spencoid2

Yes, the therapeutic version is still something like 3-5 years out. But they are starting phase II trials, so maybe there's a way in to that. If not then there are other actinium based trials going on at other places that might be recruiting participants. There's also work being done with Astatine which is another Alpha emitter that looks like it hits PCs like dump truck full of TnT

Ilovemyhubby96 profile image
Ilovemyhubby96 in reply to spencoid2

My husband may start Pluvicto soon. Could you tell me your reactions was? He is afraid it will drain his body like chemo did. Ups, downs what ever you can tell me about it! Thank you!!

spencoid2 profile image
spencoid2 in reply to Ilovemyhubby96

there are plenty of reactions to pluvicto on this forum. mine is just one experience. the general thinking is that one third of people have bad reactions or increased tumor growth and discontinue. one third have some effect and one third have amazing results?

i am more in the middle category. seems to have slowed progression a little but no miracles here . did not have any serious side effects other than fatigue. my blood counts did drop low enough that it was decided i needed a break.

Not what you're looking for?

You may also like...

Seviteronel (VT-464) - Durham's Innocrin Nabs FDA Fast Track OK for Prostate Cancer Drug

Does anyone know anything about this drug? Seviteronel (VT-464) - Durham's Innocrin Nabs FDA Fast...

FDA Grants Fast Track Designation for 177Lu-PNT2002 for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer

Is this superior to the LU177 now available?...

Syncromune Granted FDA Fast-Track Designation for SYNC-T SV-102 for the Treatment of Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC)

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., July 01, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Syncromune® Inc., a clinical-stage...

Multidimensional Treatment for advanced prostate cancer

Just came across this article:...

Finally Had First Treatment for Advanced Prostate Cancer

I live in Nebraska and was diagnosed about a ago with Prostate cancer and numerous bone METS. I...