Patient Guide · Pluvicto Response Assessment

How to know if Pluvicto is working.

The three signals clinicians use — PSA, symptoms, imaging — and the formal frameworks (PCWG3, PSMA PET PPP, RECIP) for assessing response. With every threshold cited.

Dr. Ishita B. Sen, MDDirector & Chief, Nuclear Medicine · FMRI

Published 13 May 2026

Reviewed by Dr. Dharmender Malik

11 min read

Last reviewed by Dr. Dharmender Malik on 13 May 2026 · this article reflects the published primary literature and current clinical practice at FMRI Gurugram.

Introduction

Pluvicto (Lu-177 PSMA-617) is a treatment that works for most — but not all — patients with PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the VISION trial, 30% of patients achieved a confirmed PSA response of ≥50% reduction; objective tumour response was 29.8% in the soft-tissue-disease subset by RECIST 1.1^[1]. That means a meaningful proportion respond well — and a meaningful proportion do not. Knowing where you fall in that distribution, and when, is the central question after the first few cycles.

This guide walks through how clinicians actually assess whether Pluvicto is working: the three independent signals (PSA, symptoms, imaging), the formal response criteria from prostate cancer trials (PCWG3) and from PSMA PET specifically (the PPP framework and RECIP 1.0), and the time course over which each signal becomes interpretable.

The three signals — how clinicians read response

AI Overview · short answer

Three independent signals are used to assess whether Pluvicto is working: PSA (a falling value suggests treatment is reducing cancer burden), symptoms (pain, fatigue, energy — improvement or stability suggests the disease is not progressing), and imaging (PSMA PET-CT or conventional imaging showing reduced tumour burden or activity). No single signal alone is definitive; clinicians integrate all three across follow-up cycles^[2].

Each signal has its own strengths and blind spots. PSA is biochemically sensitive — small changes show up early — but does not always correlate with imaging response in advanced disease^[3]. Symptoms are subjective and can be influenced by factors unrelated to the cancer (medication changes, mood, sleep). Imaging gives an anatomical and metabolic picture but typically lags 6-12 weeks behind biochemical changes^[2].

A response that shows up across all three signals — falling PSA, improving symptoms, reduced tumour burden on imaging — is the most reassuring. A discordance between signals (for instance, PSA falling but pain worsening, or imaging response without PSA change) requires careful clinical interpretation rather than a binary "working / not working" answer.

Signal 1 — PSA response (the PCWG3 framework)

PSA is the most accessible and earliest signal. The standard framework for interpreting PSA changes in mCRPC trials is the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 (PCWG3) criteria, published by Scher and colleagues in JCO 2016^[3].

PCWG3 PSA category	Definition	Clinical interpretation
PSA response	≥50% decline from baseline, confirmed at a second measurement ≥3 weeks later^[3]	Suggests treatment is reducing PSMA-positive tumour activity
Deep PSA response	≥90% decline from baseline, confirmed^[3]	Strongly suggests substantial tumour response
PSA progression	≥25% rise above nadir and ≥2 ng/mL absolute increase, confirmed at a second measurement ≥3 weeks later^[3]	Biochemical progression — does not by itself trigger treatment change
Stable PSA	Neither response nor progression	Continue treatment with close monitoring of other signals

In the VISION trial, 30% of Pluvicto-treated patients achieved a confirmed PSA response of ≥50%; the median time to PSA response was approximately 6 weeks, with most responders showing the response by cycle 3^[1]. A deep PSA response of ≥90% reduction occurred in 12% of patients^[4].

Clinical note · the "PSA flare"

A small proportion of patients (approximately 5-10%) experience a transient rise in PSA in the weeks after the first or second Pluvicto cycle — a "PSA flare" — that does not reflect disease progression. This is thought to result from radiation-induced cellular injury releasing PSA from dying cells before counts settle. PSA flare can be distinguished from true progression by serial measurements over 6-12 weeks and confirmation with imaging^[5]. Do not change treatment based on a single PSA rise.

Signal 2 — symptomatic response (pain, function, quality of life)

The symptomatic signal is the one that matters most to patients but is the hardest to formalise. PCWG3 recommends prospective patient-reported symptom assessment, including pain scales (Brief Pain Inventory), fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), and overall quality of life (FACT-P)^[3].

The VISION trial demonstrated a meaningful improvement in time to symptomatic skeletal event with Pluvicto: median time to first symptomatic skeletal event was 11.5 months versus 6.8 months with standard care alone^[1]. Patient-reported outcomes also showed delayed time to deterioration in quality of life and pain interference scales with Pluvicto^[6].

Practical signals patients and clinicians look for:

Reduction in pain at known metastatic sites (especially bone pain), with reduced reliance on analgesia.
Improvement in energy and exercise tolerance.
Improvement in appetite and weight stability.
Reduced urinary or bowel symptoms if disease was causing local effects.

Treatment-related fatigue from Pluvicto itself (occurring in approximately 43% of patients in VISION) can confound the symptomatic picture in the first few cycles^[1]. Most clinicians look at the trajectory across the four-to-six-cycle course rather than a single visit.

Signal 3 — imaging response (PSMA PET-CT and conventional imaging)

Imaging is the third and most spatially detailed signal. Two frameworks have emerged specifically for PSMA-targeted therapy: the PSMA PET Progression (PPP) criteria, published by Fanti and colleagues in JNM 2020^[7], and the RECIP (Response Evaluation Criteria In PSMA-imaging) framework, published by Gafita and colleagues in Lancet Oncol 2022^[8].

Framework	What it assesses	Primary use
RECIST 1.1	Anatomic size of measurable soft-tissue lesions on CT/MRI^[9]	Soft-tissue disease response
PCWG3 bone scan	Number and intensity of new bone lesions on Tc-99m MDP bone scan^[3]	Bone disease progression
PPP (Fanti 2020)^[7]	PSMA PET — new lesions, change in number and intensity	PSMA-targeted therapy response
RECIP 1.0 (Gafita 2022)^[8]	Quantitative whole-body PSMA tumour volume change	Validated for Pluvicto response, prognostic for OS

For Pluvicto specifically, the RECIP 1.0 framework has emerged as the most validated imaging response criteria. RECIP categorises response into Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (≥30% decline in PSMA tumour volume + no new lesions), Stable Disease, and Progressive Disease (≥20% increase + new lesions). In Gafita 2022, RECIP partial response correlated significantly with overall survival benefit^[8].

Most centres perform a PSMA PET-CT at baseline, an interim PSMA PET around cycle 3 (week 12-18), and an end-of-treatment PSMA PET^[10]. Conventional imaging (CT, bone scan) may be added if there is concern about new lesions outside the PSMA-targeted treatment effect (e.g., emergence of PSMA-negative disease).

What "interim response" looks like — the cycle-3 PSMA PET

The interim assessment — typically a PSMA PET-CT performed around cycle 3 (week 12-18 of treatment) — is the inflection point for many treatment decisions. Michalski and colleagues at Heidelberg published a 70-patient analysis (Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021) demonstrating that interim PSMA PET response after 2 cycles of Lu-177 PSMA-617 predicted overall survival outcomes, with patients showing PSMA tumour volume reduction having significantly longer OS than non-responders^[11].

The clinical workflow at most experienced centres after the interim PET:

Responder pattern (PSA falling, symptoms improving, PSMA tumour volume decreased): continue the planned course, typically 4-6 cycles total.
Mixed response (some lesions improving, others stable, no progression): continue with closer monitoring; consider extending to cycle 5-6 if response is favourable.
Stable disease pattern (no clear response but no progression either): consider continuing 1-2 more cycles to see if a delayed response emerges, or switching treatment.
Progressive disease pattern (new lesions on PSMA PET, rising PSA, worsening symptoms): consider switching treatment — Pluvicto is not working for this patient.

The cycle-3 interim assessment is also the point at which many centres detect early "PSMA-negative escape" — the emergence of new disease that does not express PSMA and therefore cannot be treated by Pluvicto. This is a recognised pattern of resistance and typically prompts a treatment change^[12].

Time course — when each signal becomes interpretable

The signals have different time courses. Knowing this helps avoid premature conclusions:

Signal	Earliest meaningful change	Typical interpretation timepoint
PSA response	2-4 weeks after cycle 1 (some patients earlier)	After cycle 2 (week 6-8); confirmed at week 12^[3]
Symptomatic response	4-8 weeks (pain may improve within 2 weeks; energy takes longer)^[6]	Cumulative trajectory across cycles 2-3
Imaging response (PSMA PET)	8-12 weeks (after cycle 2-3)^[11]	Interim PET at week 12-18; end-of-treatment PET
RECIST soft-tissue response	10-12 weeks (slower than PSMA PET)^[9]	After cycle 3-4

The implication: assessing whether Pluvicto is working before cycle 2-3 is generally premature. A single PSA value, a single symptom report, or a single imaging study should not drive treatment change. The pattern across measurements is what matters.

What to do if response is inadequate

If interim assessment around cycle 3 shows progressive disease, several pathways are available:

Reassess PSMA-positive disease. If the failure pattern is emergence of PSMA-negative lesions ("escape"), continuing Pluvicto will not help that component. Cross-sectional imaging (CT/MRI) and discussion of further PSMA imaging is appropriate to characterise the disease.
Consider Ac-225 PSMA-617 (alpha-emitter PRRT). For patients with persistent PSMA-positive uptake despite progression on Lu-177, alpha-emitter therapy is a recognised salvage option, with response rates of approximately 50% reported in small phase I/II series^[13]. This requires explicit informed consent given the smaller evidence base.
Switch to a different agent class. Cabazitaxel chemotherapy, additional androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, or — in selected cases with DNA damage repair mutations — PARP inhibitor therapy may be appropriate next steps^[14].
Best supportive care. For patients whose disease has progressed through multiple lines and whose performance status is declining, integrated palliative care may be the most patient-centred next step. This is not a defeat — it is meaningful care.

The decision is made in multidisciplinary review based on the specific pattern of response and progression, the patient's prior treatments, and individual preferences.

Practical summary — the questions worth asking your team

At each follow-up visit during Pluvicto therapy, the questions that matter most:

What is my PSA doing? Trend across cycles matters more than a single value. Ask for the actual numbers, not just "going in the right direction."
How are my symptoms? Pain, energy, appetite, sleep — improvement, stability, or decline are all important signals.
What does my next imaging show? Interim PSMA PET around cycle 3 is the most informative single imaging study.
Are we on track for the planned course? Or are we considering modification, extension, or change?
If I am not responding well, what comes next? Asking this proactively is reasonable and clinically useful — it gives time to plan.

Important

This article describes general frameworks. Treatment decisions about Pluvicto continuation, modification, or change should be made with a qualified nuclear medicine and urological oncology team that knows your specific case, including imaging, prior treatments, and overall health context.

"The question I hear most often from patients during Pluvicto is not whether they are responding — it is whether they should be responding faster. The honest answer is that the meaningful response signal becomes interpretable around cycle 3, not cycle 1. The pattern across cycles is what matters, not the single number on cycle day."

Dr. Ishita B. Sen, MD · Director & Chief, Nuclear Medicine, FMRI

Pluvicto response review · interpret your numbers together

If you are partway through a Pluvicto course and want help interpreting your PSA trajectory, your interim imaging, or your symptomatic response, FMRI's nuclear medicine team can walk through your specific numbers with you and help you understand where you sit on the response distribution.

Discuss your Pluvicto response · WhatsApp +91 8800 988936

For patients & referring clinicians

Frequently asked questions

Q01 How quickly does Pluvicto start working?

The first signals — PSA changes — can appear within 2-4 weeks of cycle 1, with most PSA responders showing the change by cycle 2-3 (week 6-12). Imaging response on PSMA PET typically takes 8-12 weeks after cycle 2-3 to become interpretable [11]. Symptomatic improvement often falls between these timeframes. The first "is it working" interim assessment is typically performed around cycle 3 (week 12-18). Assessing response before cycle 2-3 is generally premature [3][11].

Q02 What PSA drop counts as a Pluvicto response?

The standard PCWG3 framework defines a PSA response as a confirmed ≥50% decline from baseline (confirmed at a second measurement ≥3 weeks later). A deep PSA response is ≥90% decline [3]. In the VISION trial, 30% of Pluvicto-treated patients achieved the confirmed ≥50% PSA response, and 12% achieved the deep ≥90% response [1][4]. PSA fluctuations of less than 25% are typically not considered clinically meaningful in isolation.

Q03 Can my PSA go up at first and Pluvicto still be working?

Yes — this is called a "PSA flare." Approximately 5-10% of patients experience a transient rise in PSA in the weeks after cycle 1 or 2 that does not reflect disease progression. The proposed mechanism is radiation-induced cellular injury releasing PSA from dying cells before the broader picture stabilises [5]. PSA flare can be distinguished from true progression by serial measurements over 6-12 weeks and confirmation with imaging. Do not change treatment based on a single early PSA rise.

Q04 What is a PSMA PET interim response?

A PSMA PET-CT performed around cycle 3 of Pluvicto (week 12-18) is the interim response assessment. Michalski and colleagues showed that PSMA tumour volume change on this interim PET predicts overall survival outcomes: patients with reduced PSMA tumour volume have significantly longer OS than non-responders [11]. The RECIP 1.0 framework (Gafita 2022) provides standardised criteria: ≥30% PSMA tumour volume decline without new lesions = partial response; ≥20% increase + new lesions = progressive disease [8].

Q05 What is the difference between PCWG3, PPP, and RECIP?

PCWG3 (Scher 2016) is the broad framework for prostate cancer trials, covering PSA, bone scan, and clinical signals — it is not PSMA-specific [3]. PPP (Fanti 2020) is a PSMA PET-specific framework focused on detecting progression — primarily counting new PSMA-avid lesions [7]. RECIP 1.0 (Gafita 2022) is a quantitative PSMA-PET response framework using whole-body PSMA tumour volume change, validated specifically for Pluvicto response and shown to correlate with overall survival [8]. They are complementary, not alternatives.

Q06 How often will I get PSA tests during Pluvicto?

Standard schedule: PSA before each cycle (every 6 weeks during the active treatment course) and at follow-up visits afterward. Some centres add an intermediate PSA at 3 weeks post-cycle if there is a specific question. After completing the four-to-six-cycle course, PSA is typically measured every 6-12 weeks for the first year of follow-up, then less frequently as the trajectory stabilises [3]. Frequency may be increased if PSA changes are concerning.

Q07 How many cycles of Pluvicto will I need?

The standard course is up to 6 cycles, given approximately every 6 weeks. The actual number depends on response, side effect tolerance, and disease trajectory: patients with good response and tolerance generally complete 4-6 cycles; some discontinue earlier due to side effects or progression; some receive fewer cycles if response plateaus or organ function changes [1]. The decision to continue, modify, or stop is reviewed before each cycle based on PSA, symptoms, and any available imaging.

Q08 What happens if Pluvicto is not working?

If interim assessment shows progressive disease, several pathways are considered: reassessment of whether disease has become PSMA-negative (which Pluvicto cannot treat); consideration of Ac-225 PSMA-617 alpha-emitter PRRT for patients with persistent PSMA-positive uptake; switching to other agent classes (cabazitaxel chemotherapy, additional ARPI, PARP inhibitor in selected cases); or integrated palliative care depending on individual circumstances [13][14]. The decision is made in multidisciplinary review based on the specific pattern of progression.

Q09 Do I need a PSMA PET-CT before Pluvicto and after?

Yes to both — and typically also during. Baseline PSMA PET is required to confirm eligibility (PSMA-positive disease meeting the VISION imaging criterion) [1]. Most centres perform an interim PSMA PET around cycle 3 (week 12-18) to assess early response and inform continuation decisions [10][11]. An end-of-treatment PSMA PET is typically performed 6-8 weeks after the last cycle to document the final response. Conventional imaging (CT, bone scan) may be added if there is concern about emergent PSMA-negative disease.

Q10 Can I have other treatments while on Pluvicto?

Some — but it is treatment-specific. Continuing your androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is standard. Continuing a single androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (enzalutamide or abiraterone) is also standard in many centres. Concurrent chemotherapy or experimental agents is not usually performed during Pluvicto. Other medications (analgesia, supportive care) are continued and adjusted as needed. Always confirm specific concomitant medications with your treating team before starting or stopping anything [1][14].

Q11 How do I track my own response during Pluvicto?

Keep a simple log of: PSA values at each measurement (ask for the actual numbers); pain levels (a 0-10 scale at the same time each day); fatigue (similar scale); analgesic medication use (doses, frequency); appetite and weight; sleep quality; and any new symptoms. This personal record helps you and your team see trends that single visits might miss. Bring the log to follow-up appointments — it makes the response conversation more grounded in your specific experience [3].

Q12 Is Pluvicto a cure if it is working well?

No. Pluvicto in its approved settings (post-ARPI mCRPC, post-VISION or post-PSMAfore) is a treatment that prolongs life and slows disease progression, but it is not curative. In VISION, median overall survival was 15.3 months with Pluvicto plus standard care versus 11.3 months with standard care alone in heavily pre-treated mCRPC patients [1]. PSMAfore in the pre-chemotherapy setting showed median rPFS of 12.0 vs 5.6 months [16]. Even an excellent response — a deep PSA reduction with imaging response — represents meaningful disease control, not eradication of the underlying advanced cancer.

Citations & references

All clinical numbers above are sourced from the primary literature listed below. Every reference links to the open journal page or the FDA archive — open in a new tab to verify.

[1] Sartor O, de Bono J, Chi KN, et al. Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (VISION). N Engl J Med. 2021;385(12):1091-1103. View source ↗

[2] Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, et al. ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(6):1014-1024. View source ↗

[3] Scher HI, Morris MJ, Stadler WM, et al. Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 (PCWG3). J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(12):1402-1418. View source ↗

[4] Calais J, Czernin J. ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: 2-Year Follow-up. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(4):485-486. View source ↗

[5] Heinzel A, Boghos D, Mottaghy FM, et al. ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT for monitoring response to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in mCRPC. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(5):1054-1062. View source ↗

[6] Saad F, Fizazi K, Heinrich D, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes from the Phase 3 VISION Trial. Eur Urol. 2022;82(5):507-515. View source ↗

[7] Fanti S, Hadaschik B, Herrmann K. Proposal for Systemic-Therapy Response-Assessment Criteria at the Time of PSMA PET/CT Imaging: The PSMA PET Progression Criteria (PPP). J Nucl Med. 2020;61(5):678-682. View source ↗

[8] Gafita A, Rauscher I, Weber M, et al. Novel Framework for Treatment Response Evaluation Using PSMA PET/CT in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (RECIP 1.0). J Nucl Med. 2022;63(10):1651-1657. View source ↗

[9] Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228-247. View source ↗

[10] Hofman MS, Violet J, Hicks RJ, et al. [¹⁷⁷Lu]-PSMA-617 radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (LuPSMA trial): a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(6):825-833. View source ↗

[11] Michalski K, Kosmala A, Hartrampf PE, et al. Effect of Pre- and Interim PSMA PET-CT Response Assessment on Survival Outcome in Patients Treated with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(12):3993-4001. View source ↗

[12] Khreish F, Kochems N, Rosar F, et al. Response and outcome of ²²⁵Ac-PSMA-617 in patients with mCRPC after Lutetium-177 PSMA-617 failure. Theranostics. 2020;10(13):5979-5988. View source ↗

[13] Sathekge M, Bruchertseifer F, Knoesen O, et al. ²²⁵Ac-PSMA-617 in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced prostate cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(1):129-138. View source ↗

[14] de Wit R, de Bono J, Sternberg CN, et al. Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer (CARD). N Engl J Med. 2019;381(26):2506-2518. View source ↗

[15] Hussain M, Mateo J, Fizazi K, et al. Survival with Olaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (PROfound). N Engl J Med. 2020;383(24):2345-2357. View source ↗

[16] Morris MJ, Castellano D, Herrmann K, et al. PSMAfore: ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 versus ARPI change for taxane-naive mCRPC after 1 ARPI. Lancet. 2024;404(10458):1227-1239. View source ↗

[17] Yordanova A, Becker A, Eppard E, et al. The impact of repeated cycles of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 on renal function in mCRPC. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(9):1473-1479. View source ↗

[18] Rahbar K, Ahmadzadehfar H, Kratochwil C, et al. German Multicenter Study Investigating ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 Radioligand Therapy in Advanced Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(1):85-90. View source ↗

[19] Hofman MS, Emmett L, Sandhu S, et al. [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in mCRPC (TheraP). Lancet. 2021;397(10276):797-804. View source ↗

[20] Hofman MS, Violet J, Hicks RJ, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 in mCRPC: Expanded 50-Patient Phase II Trial. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(6):857-865. View source ↗

[21] Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Evaluation of Hybrid ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(5):668-674. View source ↗

[22] Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, et al. Assessment of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET Accuracy in Localizing Recurrent Prostate Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):856-863. View source ↗

[23] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. PLUVICTO (lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan) prescribing information. View source ↗

[24] Heck MM, Tauber R, Schwaiger S, et al. Treatment Outcome, Toxicity, and Predictive Factors for Radioligand Therapy with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-I&T in mCRPC. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):920-926. View source ↗

[25] Gafita A, Marcus C, Kostos L, et al. Predictors and Real-World Use of Prostate-Specific Radioligand Therapy: PSMA and Beyond. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2022;42:1-17. View source ↗

[26] Yordanova A, Linden P, Hauser S, et al. The value of tumor markers in mCRPC undergoing [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. Prostate. 2020;80(1):17-27. View source ↗

[27] Khreish F, Ghazal Z, Marlowe RJ, et al. ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy of mCRPC: Initial 254-patient results from a prospective registry. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(3):1075-1085. View source ↗

[28] Bodei L, Mueller-Brand J, Baum RP, et al. The joint IAEA, EANM, and SNMMI practical guidance on PRRNT in neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(5):800-816. View source ↗

[29] Hope TA, Goodman JZ, Allen IE, et al. Metaanalysis of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET Accuracy for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Validated by Histopathology. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(6):786-793. View source ↗

[30] Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, et al. Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13(4):226-235. View source ↗

[31] Sartor O, Sharma D. Pluvicto: A New PSMA-Targeted Radioligand Therapy in mCRPC. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(7):971-972. View source ↗

[32] Hofman MS, Goh JC, Tan TH, et al. ENZA-p: Enzalutamide with or without ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 in mCRPC. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25(1):99-107. View source ↗

About the Author

Dr. Ishita B. Sen

MBBS · MD (Nuclear Medicine) · DNB · Post-doctoral Fellowship, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

Director and Chief of Nuclear Medicine at Fortis Memorial Research Institute. Co-founder of Theranostic Physicians Private Limited (TPPL). Two decades of clinical practice in PSMA imaging and PSMA-directed radioligand therapy, with one of the largest Indian institutional experiences in Lu-PSMA.

Full profile → All publications Book a consult