Trials in plain words
Hazard ratios and medians mean little to most readers. This page takes every trial result recorded in Nuclide and says what it means for people: how many more out of 100 were helped, roughly how many need to be treated for one extra person to benefit, what a median is and is not, whether the endpoint is a surrogate or actual survival, and who the trial enrolled. The numbers come from the trial records and their sources; the words are ours.
EMBARK
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023Showed that treating a fast-rising PSA after surgery or radiation with enzalutamide delays spread.
EMBARK
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023- 87.3 vs 71.4 out of 100 reached this endpoint with Enzalutamide + leuprolide, 5-year MFS compared with Leuprolide alone, 5-year MFS; 15.9 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 6 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 58 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.42, likely range 0.3 to 0.61).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: High-risk biochemical recurrence (PSA doubling time ≤9 months) after local therapy: enzalutamide + leuprolide, enzalutamide alone, or leuprolide alone. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
SPOTLIGHT
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2023A PET scan (the tracer later approved as Posluma) was tested in men whose PSA rose again after treatment for prostate cancer, to see how often it can find exactly where the cancer has come back.
SPOTLIGHT
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2023- 52 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-flotufolastat (rhPSMA-7.3) PET-CT.
- 53 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-flotufolastat PET-CT.
- 83 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-flotufolastat PET-CT.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after prior curative-intent treatment, being considered for salvage therapy; a diagnostic (imaging) trial. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
CONDOR
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2021A PET scan using a PSMA tracer (piflufolastat F-18, brand Pylarify) was tested in men whose prostate cancer PSA had risen again but standard scans could not find where, to see how reliably it could locate the recurrence.
CONDOR
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2021- 86 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-DCFPyL (piflufolastat F-18) PET-CT.
- 63.9 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, with negative or equivocal conventional imaging; a diagnostic (imaging) trial. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
FALCON
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2019A PET scan using the tracer fluciclovine (brand Axumin) was tested in UK men whose prostate cancer PSA had risen again, to see how often the scan changed the treatment doctors planned to give.
FALCON
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2019- 64 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT.
- 66/104; recruitment stopped early for overwhelming efficacy at a planned interim analysis.
- 56 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Men with a first episode of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after curative-intent primary therapy, being considered for salvage therapy; a diagnostic (management-impact) trial. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
ALSYMPCA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013ALSYMPCA is the trial that won approval for the first alpha-emitting drug.
ALSYMPCA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013- Median 14.9 vs 11.3 months with Radium-223 compared with Placebo; about 3.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 30 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.7, likely range 0.58 to 0.83).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Symptomatic bone-metastatic CRPC without visceral disease: radium-223 vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025The first head-to-head trial of a radioligand against a targeted pill in neuroendocrine tumours; the radioligand won on progression-free survival.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- Median 23.9 vs 14.1 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 9.8 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 33 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.67, likely range 0.48 to 0.95).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 63.4 vs 58.7 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 4.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 22 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.78, likely range 0.5 to 1.1).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive grade 1-2 SSTR-positive GEP-NETs: 177Lu-edotreotide vs everolimus. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (SSTR); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Hepatocellular carcinoma
1 trialSARAH and SIRveNIB
NegativePhase 3 · reported 2017Two large trials found radioactive beads were gentler than sorafenib but did not help patients live longer.
SARAH and SIRveNIB
NegativePhase 3 · reported 2017- Median 8 vs 9.9 months with Y-90 SIRT compared with Sorafenib; about 1.9 months shorter for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 15 percent higher chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 1.15).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Locally advanced HCC: yttrium-90 radioembolisation vs sorafenib. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
HER2-positive breast cancer
1 trialPHERGain
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2024Using an early PET scan to spot responders let a third of women be cured of HER2-positive breast cancer without any chemotherapy.
PHERGain
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2024- 95.4 out of 100 people alive without the cancer coming back at 3 years with PET-adapted HP ± chemotherapy.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HER2+ early breast cancer: chemotherapy-free trastuzumab + pertuzumab with early 18F-FDG PET response assessment to decide whether chemotherapy is needed. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
LIGHTHOUSE
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2023A PET scan using a PSMA-targeting tracer (later approved as Posluma) was tested in men newly diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer to see how well it spots cancer that has already spread to lymph nodes or elsewhere in the body before surgery.
LIGHTHOUSE
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2023- 27 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-flotufolastat (rhPSMA-7.3) PET-CT.
- 95 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-flotufolastat (rhPSMA-7.3) PET-CT.
- 12 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-flotufolastat PET-CT, verified by biopsy or confirmatory imaging.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Men with newly diagnosed, treatment-naive unfavourable intermediate- to very-high-risk prostate cancer planned for radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection; a staging (diagnostic) trial. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
LuTectomy
ActivePhase 1/2 · reported 2023In men about to have their prostate removed for high-risk cancer, giving one or two doses of the radioactive drug lutetium-PSMA beforehand delivered a meaningful radiation dose straight to the tumour, was well tolerated, and did not make the surgery harder or riskier.
LuTectomy
ActivePhase 1/2 · reported 2023- 177Lu-PSMA-617 (5 GBq), one or two cycles before prostatectomy: 35.5 Gy.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- 45 out of 100 people had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-PSMA-617 before prostatectomy.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- 0 out of 100 people had no cancer left at surgery with 177Lu-PSMA-617 before prostatectomy.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- 0 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 177Lu-PSMA-617 before prostatectomy.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Men with high-risk localised prostate cancer and high PSMA uptake, scheduled for radical prostatectomy; neoadjuvant, pre-surgical setting. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
- Only 20 people took part, so the numbers are less certain than in a large trial.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
OSPREY
CompletedPhase 2/3 · reported 2021An earlier study of the same PSMA PET scan later branded Pylarify, testing how well it detects lymph node spread before surgery in high-risk prostate cancer, and how well it confirms recurrent or spreading disease when a biopsy is possible.
OSPREY
CompletedPhase 2/3 · reported 2021- 97.9 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT.
- 40.3 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT.
- 95.8 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 18F-DCFPyL PET-CT.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Cohort A: men with high-risk prostate cancer planned for radical prostatectomy with lymphadenectomy (initial staging). Cohort B: men with suspected recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer feasible for biopsy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
proPSMA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2020Proved PSMA PET is far more accurate than conventional scans for staging, with less radiation.
proPSMA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2020Trial page · ANZCTR12617000005358
- 92 vs 65 out of 100 reached this endpoint with PSMA PET/CT compared with CT + bone scan; 27 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 4 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (<0.0001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: High-risk localised prostate cancer staging: PSMA PET/CT vs CT + bone scan. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
STAMPEDE
PositivePlatform trial · reported 2016STAMPEDE is the longest-running platform trial in oncology, and showed that both docetaxel and abiraterone extend life when started at first diagnosis of metastatic disease.
STAMPEDE
PositivePlatform trial · reported 2016- The treated group had about 40 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.6).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- 6-year OS 60% 6-year OS 45%
- Median 60 vs 45 months with ADT + docetaxel compared with ADT alone; about 15 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 24 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.76).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Multi-arm multi-stage platform in men starting long-term hormone therapy for high-risk locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, abiraterone, radiotherapy to the prostate, abiraterone with enzalutamide, metformin and transdermal oestradiol added to ADT and compared with ADT alone. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024Cabozantinib tripled the time without progression in neuroendocrine tumours that had outgrown other treatments, leading to a 2025 approval.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024- Median 13.8 vs 4.4 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 9.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 77 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.23, likely range 0.12 to 0.42).
- Median 8.4 vs 3.9 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 4.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 62 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.38, likely range 0.25 to 0.59).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Previously treated advanced pancreatic (n=95) and extra-pancreatic (n=203) NETs: cabozantinib vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011The two trials that made everolimus a standard pill for pancreatic, lung and gut neuroendocrine tumours.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011- Median 11 vs 4.6 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 6.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 65 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.35, likely range 0.27 to 0.45).
- Median 11 vs 3.9 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 7.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 52 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.48, likely range 0.35 to 0.67).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive pancreatic NETs (RADIANT-3, n=410) and lung/GI NETs (RADIANT-4, n=302): everolimus vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
PRINCE
CompletedPhase 1/2 · reported 2026Combining the radioactive drug lutetium-PSMA with the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab produced strong PSA responses in men with advanced, heavily pretreated prostate cancer, with side effects in line with what each drug causes on its own.
PRINCE
CompletedPhase 1/2 · reported 2026- 76 out of 100 people had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-PSMA-617 (up to 6 cycles) + pembrolizumab (up to 24 months).
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- 70 out of 100 people had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + pembrolizumab.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- Median 20.8 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + pembrolizumab.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- 30 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + pembrolizumab.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with high PSMA expression, after prior androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (with prior docetaxel allowed); combination therapy trial. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
- Only 37 people took part, so the numbers are less certain than in a large trial.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
ECLIPSE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025Curium's PSMA radioligand met its progression endpoint; survival data and an FDA filing are pending.
ECLIPSE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- Numbers are not recorded here for this endpoint. 177Lu-PSMA-I&T: Met per sponsor; medians pending publication; ARPI switch.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA-positive mCRPC after ARPI, taxane-naive: 177Lu-PSMA-I&T (7.4 GBq × 6) vs ARPI switch. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
ENZA-p
ActivePhase 2 · reported 2025Adding the radioactive drug lutetium-PSMA to the hormone drug enzalutamide, with the dose adjusted according to a mid-treatment PET scan, kept prostate cancer under control for longer and helped men with high-risk metastatic disease live longer than enzalutamide on its own.
ENZA-p
ActivePhase 2 · reported 2025- Median 13 vs 7.8 months with Enzalutamide + adaptive-dosed 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Enzalutamide alone; about 5.2 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 57 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.43, likely range 0.29 to 0.63).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 34 vs 26 months with Enzalutamide + adaptive-dosed 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Enzalutamide alone; about 8 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 45 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.55, likely range 0.36 to 0.84).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- 93 vs 68 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with Enzalutamide + 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Enzalutamide alone; 25 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 4 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- 46 vs 44 out of 100 reached this endpoint with Enzalutamide + 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Enzalutamide alone; 2 more per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, PSMA-PET-positive, no prior docetaxel or ARPI for mCRPC, with at least two risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide; first-line mCRPC. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
SPLASH
MixedPhase 3 · reported 2024In SPLASH, a second PSMA radioligand improved progression-free survival but not, so far, survival.
SPLASH
MixedPhase 3 · reported 2024- Median 9.5 vs 6 months with 177Lu-PNT2002 (PSMA-I&T) compared with ARPI switch; about 3.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 29 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.71, likely range 0.55 to 0.92).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- The treated group had about 11 percent higher chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 1.11).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- Numerically unfavourable at interim with crossover
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- Numerically unfavourable at interim with crossover.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA-positive mCRPC after one ARPI, taxane-naive: 177Lu-PNT2002 vs ARPI switch. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
PSMAfore
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023PSMAfore moved Pluvicto before chemotherapy in prostate cancer.
PSMAfore
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023- Median 12 vs 5.6 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with ARPI switch; about 6.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 59 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.41, likely range 0.29 to 0.56).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- The treated group had about 41 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.59).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- Unadjusted OS HR 0.98 with 84% crossover from control
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- Unadjusted OS HR 0.98 with 84% crossover from control.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA+ mCRPC after one ARPI, taxane-naive: 177Lu-PSMA-617 vs ARPI switch. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
TheraP (ANZUP 1603)
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2021The randomised trial that first pitted a radioligand against chemotherapy and won on response, with fewer side effects.
TheraP (ANZUP 1603)
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2021- 66 vs 37 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Cabazitaxel; 29 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 3 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (<0.0001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- Median 19.1 vs 19.6 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Cabazitaxel; about 0.5 months shorter for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 3 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.97).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: mCRPC after docetaxel: 177Lu-PSMA-617 vs cabazitaxel, PSMA PET/FDG PET selected. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
VISION
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2021VISION was the trial that established radioligand therapy in prostate cancer.
VISION
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2021- Median 15.3 vs 11.3 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + standard care compared with Standard care; about 4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 38 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.62, likely range 0.52 to 0.74).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- Median 8.7 vs 3.4 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + standard care compared with Standard care; about 5.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 60 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.4, likely range 0.29 to 0.57).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA+ metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after ARPI and taxane: 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SOC vs SOC. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
ALSYMPCA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013ALSYMPCA is the trial that won approval for the first alpha-emitting drug.
ALSYMPCA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013- Median 14.9 vs 11.3 months with Radium-223 compared with Placebo; about 3.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 30 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.7, likely range 0.58 to 0.83).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Symptomatic bone-metastatic CRPC without visceral disease: radium-223 vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
PSMAddition
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025PSMAddition moved the radioligand Pluvicto into the first treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, given alongside hormone therapy, and the FDA approved this use on 31 July 2026. It delayed progression on scans, but severe side effects were more common and whether it lengthens life is not yet known.
PSMAddition
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- The treated group had about 28 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.72).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- Updated HR 0.67; OS HR 0.80, immature
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA-positive metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: 177Lu-PSMA-617 + ADT + ARPI vs ADT + ARPI. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
- Updated HR 0.67; OS HR 0.80, immature.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
UpFrontPSMA
ActivePhase 2 · reported 2024In men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer that has already spread widely, giving two doses of the radioactive drug lutetium-PSMA before starting chemotherapy cleared PSA to undetectable levels in more men than chemotherapy alone, without adding side effects.
UpFrontPSMA
ActivePhase 2 · reported 2024- 41 vs 16 out of 100 reached this endpoint with 177Lu-PSMA-617 (2 cycles) then docetaxel (6 cycles) + ADT compared with Docetaxel (6 cycles) + ADT alone; 25 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 4 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (0.0020) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- Median 31 vs 20 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 then docetaxel + ADT compared with Docetaxel + ADT alone; about 11 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 40 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.6, likely range 0.37 to 0.98).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 20 vs 16 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 then docetaxel + ADT compared with Docetaxel + ADT alone; about 4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 40 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.6, likely range 0.38 to 0.96).
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- 29 vs 27 out of 100 reached this endpoint with 177Lu-PSMA-617 then docetaxel + ADT compared with Docetaxel + ADT alone; 2 more per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: De novo, high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, first-line, given within 12 weeks of diagnosis and no more than 4 weeks of androgen deprivation therapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
STAMPEDE
PositivePlatform trial · reported 2016STAMPEDE is the longest-running platform trial in oncology, and showed that both docetaxel and abiraterone extend life when started at first diagnosis of metastatic disease.
STAMPEDE
PositivePlatform trial · reported 2016- The treated group had about 40 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.6).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- 6-year OS 60% 6-year OS 45%
- Median 60 vs 45 months with ADT + docetaxel compared with ADT alone; about 15 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 24 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.76).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Multi-arm multi-stage platform in men starting long-term hormone therapy for high-risk locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, abiraterone, radiotherapy to the prostate, abiraterone with enzalutamide, metformin and transdermal oestradiol added to ADT and compared with ADT alone. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
CHAARTED (E3805)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2015The first trial to show chemotherapy at the start of hormone therapy prolongs life in metastatic prostate cancer.
CHAARTED (E3805)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2015- Median 57.6 vs 44 months with ADT + docetaxel compared with ADT alone; about 13.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 39 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.61, likely range 0.47 to 0.8).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: ADT + docetaxel vs ADT. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Neuroendocrine tumours
5 trialsALPHAMEDIX-02
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2025An alpha-emitting radioligand met all its primary endpoints, with responses in more than half of patients new to radioligand therapy.
ALPHAMEDIX-02
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2025- 54.3 out of 100 people had their tumour shrink with 212Pb-DOTAMTATE.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Unresectable or metastatic SSTR-positive GEP-NETs, PRRT-naive and PRRT-exposed cohorts: 212Pb-DOTAMTATE single arm. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (SSTR); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025The first head-to-head trial of a radioligand against a targeted pill in neuroendocrine tumours; the radioligand won on progression-free survival.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- Median 23.9 vs 14.1 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 9.8 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 33 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.67, likely range 0.48 to 0.95).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 63.4 vs 58.7 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 4.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 22 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.78, likely range 0.5 to 1.1).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive grade 1-2 SSTR-positive GEP-NETs: 177Lu-edotreotide vs everolimus. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (SSTR); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024Cabozantinib tripled the time without progression in neuroendocrine tumours that had outgrown other treatments, leading to a 2025 approval.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024- Median 13.8 vs 4.4 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 9.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 77 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.23, likely range 0.12 to 0.42).
- Median 8.4 vs 3.9 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 4.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 62 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.38, likely range 0.25 to 0.59).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Previously treated advanced pancreatic (n=95) and extra-pancreatic (n=203) NETs: cabozantinib vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
NETTER-1
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2017The trial that made radioligand therapy a standard: a radioactive drug homing to the somatostatin receptor held midgut neuroendocrine tumours in check far longer than high-dose octreotide, and it underpins Lutathera's approvals.
NETTER-1
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2017- 65.2 vs 10.8 out of 100 alive without the cancer growing at 20 months with 177Lu-Dotatate + octreotide compared with High-dose octreotide LAR; 54.4 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 2 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 79 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.21, likely range 0.13 to 0.33).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- 18 vs 3 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-Dotatate + octreotide compared with High-dose octreotide LAR; 15 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 7 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Inoperable, progressive midgut neuroendocrine tumours: 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide versus high-dose octreotide LAR. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011The two trials that made everolimus a standard pill for pancreatic, lung and gut neuroendocrine tumours.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011- Median 11 vs 4.6 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 6.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 65 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.35, likely range 0.27 to 0.45).
- Median 11 vs 3.9 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 7.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 52 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.48, likely range 0.35 to 0.67).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive pancreatic NETs (RADIANT-3, n=410) and lung/GI NETs (RADIANT-4, n=302): everolimus vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
PROSPER
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2018PROSPER showed that enzalutamide delayed the appearance of metastases by about two years, and later helped men live longer, when given at the point where prostate cancer is rising on hormone therapy but has not yet spread on scans.
PROSPER
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2018- Median 36.6 vs 14.7 months with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; about 21.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 71 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.29, likely range 0.24 to 0.35).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 37.2 vs 3.9 months with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; about 33.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 93 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.07).
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- Median 39.6 vs 17.7 months with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; about 21.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 79 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.21).
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- 31 vs 23 out of 100 reached this endpoint with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; 8 more per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with a PSA doubling time of ten months or less: enzalutamide against placebo, both with continued androgen deprivation. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025The first head-to-head trial of a radioligand against a targeted pill in neuroendocrine tumours; the radioligand won on progression-free survival.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- Median 23.9 vs 14.1 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 9.8 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 33 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.67, likely range 0.48 to 0.95).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 63.4 vs 58.7 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 4.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 22 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.78, likely range 0.5 to 1.1).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive grade 1-2 SSTR-positive GEP-NETs: 177Lu-edotreotide vs everolimus. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (SSTR); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024Cabozantinib tripled the time without progression in neuroendocrine tumours that had outgrown other treatments, leading to a 2025 approval.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024- Median 13.8 vs 4.4 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 9.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 77 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.23, likely range 0.12 to 0.42).
- Median 8.4 vs 3.9 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 4.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 62 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.38, likely range 0.25 to 0.59).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Previously treated advanced pancreatic (n=95) and extra-pancreatic (n=203) NETs: cabozantinib vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
NETTER-1
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2017The trial that made radioligand therapy a standard: a radioactive drug homing to the somatostatin receptor held midgut neuroendocrine tumours in check far longer than high-dose octreotide, and it underpins Lutathera's approvals.
NETTER-1
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2017- 65.2 vs 10.8 out of 100 alive without the cancer growing at 20 months with 177Lu-Dotatate + octreotide compared with High-dose octreotide LAR; 54.4 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 2 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 79 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.21, likely range 0.13 to 0.33).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- 18 vs 3 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-Dotatate + octreotide compared with High-dose octreotide LAR; 15 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 7 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Inoperable, progressive midgut neuroendocrine tumours: 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide versus high-dose octreotide LAR. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011The two trials that made everolimus a standard pill for pancreatic, lung and gut neuroendocrine tumours.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011- Median 11 vs 4.6 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 6.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 65 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.35, likely range 0.27 to 0.45).
- Median 11 vs 3.9 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 7.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 52 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.48, likely range 0.35 to 0.67).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive pancreatic NETs (RADIANT-3, n=410) and lung/GI NETs (RADIANT-4, n=302): everolimus vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Prostate cancer
13 trialsECLIPSE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025Curium's PSMA radioligand met its progression endpoint; survival data and an FDA filing are pending.
ECLIPSE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- Numbers are not recorded here for this endpoint. 177Lu-PSMA-I&T: Met per sponsor; medians pending publication; ARPI switch.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA-positive mCRPC after ARPI, taxane-naive: 177Lu-PSMA-I&T (7.4 GBq × 6) vs ARPI switch. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
PSMAddition
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025PSMAddition moved the radioligand Pluvicto into the first treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, given alongside hormone therapy, and the FDA approved this use on 31 July 2026. It delayed progression on scans, but severe side effects were more common and whether it lengthens life is not yet known.
PSMAddition
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- The treated group had about 28 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.72).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- Updated HR 0.67; OS HR 0.80, immature
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA-positive metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: 177Lu-PSMA-617 + ADT + ARPI vs ADT + ARPI. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
- Updated HR 0.67; OS HR 0.80, immature.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
SPLASH
MixedPhase 3 · reported 2024In SPLASH, a second PSMA radioligand improved progression-free survival but not, so far, survival.
SPLASH
MixedPhase 3 · reported 2024- Median 9.5 vs 6 months with 177Lu-PNT2002 (PSMA-I&T) compared with ARPI switch; about 3.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 29 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.71, likely range 0.55 to 0.92).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- The treated group had about 11 percent higher chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 1.11).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- Numerically unfavourable at interim with crossover
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- Numerically unfavourable at interim with crossover.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA-positive mCRPC after one ARPI, taxane-naive: 177Lu-PNT2002 vs ARPI switch. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
EMBARK
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023Showed that treating a fast-rising PSA after surgery or radiation with enzalutamide delays spread.
EMBARK
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023- 87.3 vs 71.4 out of 100 reached this endpoint with Enzalutamide + leuprolide, 5-year MFS compared with Leuprolide alone, 5-year MFS; 15.9 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 6 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 58 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.42, likely range 0.3 to 0.61).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: High-risk biochemical recurrence (PSA doubling time ≤9 months) after local therapy: enzalutamide + leuprolide, enzalutamide alone, or leuprolide alone. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
PSMAfore
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023PSMAfore moved Pluvicto before chemotherapy in prostate cancer.
PSMAfore
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2023- Median 12 vs 5.6 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with ARPI switch; about 6.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 59 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.41, likely range 0.29 to 0.56).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- The treated group had about 41 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.59).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- Unadjusted OS HR 0.98 with 84% crossover from control
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- Unadjusted OS HR 0.98 with 84% crossover from control.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA+ mCRPC after one ARPI, taxane-naive: 177Lu-PSMA-617 vs ARPI switch. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
POP-RT
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2021POP-RT, from Mumbai, showed that treating the pelvic lymph nodes as well as the prostate improves disease control in high-risk prostate cancer, reviving a question earlier trials had left unanswered.
POP-RT
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2021- 95 vs 81.2 out of 100 alive at 5 years with Whole-pelvic radiotherapy compared with Prostate-only radiotherapy; 13.8 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 7 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: High-risk node-negative prostate cancer: prostate-only versus whole-pelvic radiotherapy, both with hormone therapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
TheraP (ANZUP 1603)
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2021The randomised trial that first pitted a radioligand against chemotherapy and won on response, with fewer side effects.
TheraP (ANZUP 1603)
PositivePhase 2 · reported 2021- 66 vs 37 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Cabazitaxel; 29 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 3 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (<0.0001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- Median 19.1 vs 19.6 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with Cabazitaxel; about 0.5 months shorter for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 3 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.97).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: mCRPC after docetaxel: 177Lu-PSMA-617 vs cabazitaxel, PSMA PET/FDG PET selected. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
VISION
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2021VISION was the trial that established radioligand therapy in prostate cancer.
VISION
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2021- Median 15.3 vs 11.3 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + standard care compared with Standard care; about 4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 38 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.62, likely range 0.52 to 0.74).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- Median 8.7 vs 3.4 months with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + standard care compared with Standard care; about 5.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 60 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.4, likely range 0.29 to 0.57).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: PSMA+ metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after ARPI and taxane: 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SOC vs SOC. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
proPSMA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2020Proved PSMA PET is far more accurate than conventional scans for staging, with less radiation.
proPSMA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2020Trial page · ANZCTR12617000005358
- 92 vs 65 out of 100 reached this endpoint with PSMA PET/CT compared with CT + bone scan; 27 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 4 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (<0.0001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: High-risk localised prostate cancer staging: PSMA PET/CT vs CT + bone scan. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PSMA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
PROSPER
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2018PROSPER showed that enzalutamide delayed the appearance of metastases by about two years, and later helped men live longer, when given at the point where prostate cancer is rising on hormone therapy but has not yet spread on scans.
PROSPER
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2018- Median 36.6 vs 14.7 months with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; about 21.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 71 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.29, likely range 0.24 to 0.35).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 37.2 vs 3.9 months with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; about 33.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 93 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.07).
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- Median 39.6 vs 17.7 months with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; about 21.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 79 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.21).
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- 31 vs 23 out of 100 reached this endpoint with Enzalutamide compared with Placebo; 8 more per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with a PSA doubling time of ten months or less: enzalutamide against placebo, both with continued androgen deprivation. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
STAMPEDE
PositivePlatform trial · reported 2016STAMPEDE is the longest-running platform trial in oncology, and showed that both docetaxel and abiraterone extend life when started at first diagnosis of metastatic disease.
STAMPEDE
PositivePlatform trial · reported 2016- The treated group had about 40 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.6).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- 6-year OS 60% 6-year OS 45%
- Median 60 vs 45 months with ADT + docetaxel compared with ADT alone; about 15 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 24 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.76).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Multi-arm multi-stage platform in men starting long-term hormone therapy for high-risk locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, abiraterone, radiotherapy to the prostate, abiraterone with enzalutamide, metformin and transdermal oestradiol added to ADT and compared with ADT alone. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
CHAARTED (E3805)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2015The first trial to show chemotherapy at the start of hormone therapy prolongs life in metastatic prostate cancer.
CHAARTED (E3805)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2015- Median 57.6 vs 44 months with ADT + docetaxel compared with ADT alone; about 13.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 39 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.61, likely range 0.47 to 0.8).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: ADT + docetaxel vs ADT. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
ALSYMPCA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013ALSYMPCA is the trial that won approval for the first alpha-emitting drug.
ALSYMPCA
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013- Median 14.9 vs 11.3 months with Radium-223 compared with Placebo; about 3.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 30 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.7, likely range 0.58 to 0.83).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Symptomatic bone-metastatic CRPC without visceral disease: radium-223 vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Renal cell carcinoma
1 trialZIRCON
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2024A single PET scan with a radioactive antibody (89Zr-girentuximab, brand TLX250-CDx) can tell whether an unexplained kidney lump is a clear cell kidney cancer before surgery, so some patients might be spared an unnecessary biopsy or operation.
ZIRCON
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2024- 85.5 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 89Zr-girentuximab PET-CT.
- 87 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with 89Zr-girentuximab PET-CT.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Adults with a single indeterminate renal mass (cT1, up to 7 cm) suspicious for clear cell renal cell carcinoma, scheduled for nephrectomy; a diagnostic (imaging) trial, not a treatment line. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025The first head-to-head trial of a radioligand against a targeted pill in neuroendocrine tumours; the radioligand won on progression-free survival.
COMPETE
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2025- Median 23.9 vs 14.1 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 9.8 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 33 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.67, likely range 0.48 to 0.95).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Median 63.4 vs 58.7 months with 177Lu-edotreotide compared with Everolimus; about 4.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 22 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.78, likely range 0.5 to 1.1).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive grade 1-2 SSTR-positive GEP-NETs: 177Lu-edotreotide vs everolimus. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (SSTR); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024Cabozantinib tripled the time without progression in neuroendocrine tumours that had outgrown other treatments, leading to a 2025 approval.
CABINET (Alliance A021602)
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024- Median 13.8 vs 4.4 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 9.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 77 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.23, likely range 0.12 to 0.42).
- Median 8.4 vs 3.9 months with Cabozantinib compared with Placebo; about 4.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 62 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.38, likely range 0.25 to 0.59).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Previously treated advanced pancreatic (n=95) and extra-pancreatic (n=203) NETs: cabozantinib vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
NETTER-1
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2017The trial that made radioligand therapy a standard: a radioactive drug homing to the somatostatin receptor held midgut neuroendocrine tumours in check far longer than high-dose octreotide, and it underpins Lutathera's approvals.
NETTER-1
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2017- 65.2 vs 10.8 out of 100 alive without the cancer growing at 20 months with 177Lu-Dotatate + octreotide compared with High-dose octreotide LAR; 54.4 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 2 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 79 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.21, likely range 0.13 to 0.33).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- 18 vs 3 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with 177Lu-Dotatate + octreotide compared with High-dose octreotide LAR; 15 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 7 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Inoperable, progressive midgut neuroendocrine tumours: 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide versus high-dose octreotide LAR. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011The two trials that made everolimus a standard pill for pancreatic, lung and gut neuroendocrine tumours.
RADIANT-3 and RADIANT-4
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2011- Median 11 vs 4.6 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 6.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 65 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.35, likely range 0.27 to 0.45).
- Median 11 vs 3.9 months with Everolimus compared with Placebo; about 7.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 52 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.48, likely range 0.35 to 0.67).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Progressive pancreatic NETs (RADIANT-3, n=410) and lung/GI NETs (RADIANT-4, n=302): everolimus vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Thyroid cancer
6 trialsIoN
PositivePhase 2/3 · reported 2025The UK trial confirming that low-risk thyroid cancer patients can safely avoid radioactive iodine, published in 2025.
IoN
PositivePhase 2/3 · reported 2025- 98 vs 96 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 5 years with No radioiodine compared with Radioiodine; 2 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 50 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (pT1-T2, N0/Nx, no adverse features) after thyroidectomy: no radioiodine vs radioiodine ablation. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
ESTIMABL2
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2022Proved that most people with small, low-risk thyroid cancers can skip radioactive iodine after surgery without any increase in recurrence.
ESTIMABL2
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2022- 95.6 vs 95.9 out of 100 reached this endpoint at 3 years with No radioiodine compared with Radioiodine 1.1 GBq; 0.3 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (pT1a-T1b N0/Nx) after total thyroidectomy: no radioiodine vs 1.1 GBq ablation. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
ASTRA
NegativePhase 3 · reported 2019Adding a MEK inhibitor to boost iodine uptake before ablation did not improve complete remission rates, cooling the 'redifferentiation for everyone' idea.
ASTRA
NegativePhase 3 · reported 2019- 40 vs 38.5 out of 100 had no sign of cancer on scans or tests with Selumetinib + RAI compared with Placebo + RAI; 1.5 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 67 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: High-risk differentiated thyroid cancer: selumetinib + adjuvant radioiodine vs placebo + radioiodine. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
SELECT
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2015Turned lenvatinib into the main drug for thyroid cancers that no longer take up radioactive iodine, quadrupling the time before the disease grew.
SELECT
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2015- Median 18.3 vs 3.6 months with Lenvatinib compared with Placebo; about 14.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 79 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.21).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- 64.8 vs 1.5 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with Lenvatinib compared with Placebo; 63.3 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 2 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer with progression: lenvatinib vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
DECISION
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013The first drug approved for thyroid cancers that stopped responding to radioactive iodine.
DECISION
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2013- Median 10.8 vs 5.8 months with Sorafenib compared with Placebo; about 5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 41 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.59).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: sorafenib vs placebo. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
HiLo
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2012Showed a third of the usual radioactive iodine dose ablates the thyroid remnant just as well, with fewer side effects and less time in isolation.
HiLo
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2012- 85 vs 88.9 out of 100 reached this endpoint with 1.1 GBq compared with 3.7 GBq; 3.9 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Differentiated thyroid cancer needing ablation: low-dose (1.1 GBq) vs high-dose (3.7 GBq) radioiodine, with recombinant TSH or thyroid hormone withdrawal. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Trials not yet linked to a cancer
5 trialsGHSG HD21
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024A new brentuximab-based intensive regimen matched Europe's most effective (and most toxic) chemotherapy with far fewer side effects.
GHSG HD21
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024- 94.3 vs 90.9 out of 100 alive without the cancer growing at 4 years with BrECADD compared with eBEACOPP; 3.4 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 29 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 34 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.66, likely range 0.45 to 0.97).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- 42 vs 59 out of 100 reached this endpoint with BrECADD compared with eBEACOPP; 17 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Untreated advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma, age 18-60: PET-guided BrECADD vs escalated BEACOPP. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
IELSG37
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024IELSG37 showed that people with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma whose scan is clear after chemotherapy do not need radiotherapy to the chest, sparing young patients decades of heart and breast cancer risk.
IELSG37
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2024- 96.7 vs 98.5 out of 100 alive without the cancer growing at 30 months with Observation compared with Consolidation radiotherapy 30 Gy; 1.8 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma in complete metabolic response on PET after rituximab-based immunochemotherapy: consolidation mediastinal radiotherapy versus observation. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
AURORA
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2023A new PET heart-imaging tracer called flurpiridaz was tested against the standard SPECT heart scan in people with suspected coronary artery disease, and found blocked arteries more reliably, especially in women and people with obesity, while using about half the radiation dose.
AURORA
CompletedPhase 3 · reported 2023- 80.3 vs 68.7 out of 100 reached this endpoint with 18F-flurpiridaz PET compared with 99mTc-SPECT; 11.6 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 9 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (0.0003) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- 63.8 vs 61.7 out of 100 reached this endpoint with 18F-flurpiridaz PET compared with 99mTc-SPECT; 2.1 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 48 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- The p-value (0.0004) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- 18F-flurpiridaz PET: 0.8 AUC; 99mTc-SPECT: 0.7 AUC.
- The p-value (<0.001) says a difference this large would rarely happen by chance; it does not say how large or how useful the difference is.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Adults with suspected coronary artery disease undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging before invasive coronary angiography; a diagnostic (cardiac imaging) trial. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
IDEAS (Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning)
CompletedObservational study · reported 2019A large US Medicare study asked whether a brain scan that detects amyloid protein (a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease) actually changes what doctors do for patients with memory problems; it found that doctors changed the treatment or diagnosis plan for roughly six in ten patients after seeing the scan.
IDEAS (Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning)
CompletedObservational study · reported 2019- 60.2 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with Pre-PET vs post-PET documented plan (MCI).
- 63.5 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with Pre-PET vs post-PET documented plan (dementia).
- 25.1 out of 100 people reached this endpoint with Amyloid PET, all patients.
- There was no comparison group, so this number cannot tell you how much of the effect is due to the treatment.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Medicare beneficiaries with mild cognitive impairment or dementia of uncertain cause, evaluated by dementia specialists; a coverage-with-evidence-development registry study, not a treatment trial. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
RATHL
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2016Showed that patients whose PET scan is clear after two cycles can safely drop bleomycin and its lung toxicity.
RATHL
PositivePhase 3 · reported 2016- 85.7 vs 84.4 out of 100 alive without the cancer growing at 3 years with ABVD compared with AVD; 1.3 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 77 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Advanced Hodgkin lymphoma: interim-PET-guided omission of bleomycin (AVD) vs continued ABVD. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.