Novartis Europharm Limited withdrew its application to vary the marketing authorization for Pluvicto (lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan) with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the agency confirmed in April 2026. The withdrawal, filed on 23 March 2026, concerned a proposed label extension into an earlier treatment setting for PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer — specifically, patients with no or mild symptoms whose disease had progressed on an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and who were not yet eligible for taxane-based chemotherapy.
The variation application sought to extend Pluvicto's use beyond its current EU authorization, which covers adults with progressive PSMA-positive mCRPC previously treated with both an ARPI and a taxane. The withdrawn filing would have repositioned the radioligand therapy earlier in the treatment sequence, before chemotherapy becomes indicated.
The company submitted data from a study in adults with PSMA-positive, progressive mCRPC who had received prior hormone-blocking therapy and remained chemotherapy-naive. The trial compared Pluvicto against an alternative hormone-blocking medicine, with radiographic progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. Overall survival was also assessed.
The agency's review identified unresolved concerns before the withdrawal was formalized. Although the study demonstrated an increase in time before radiographic progression compared with the comparator, the EMA's provisional assessment questioned whether that delay represented a meaningful clinical benefit. Central to that concern was the nature of the comparator: the EMA indicated that the hormone-blocking treatment used as a control was not considered adequate therapy for patients at that stage of disease, which complicated interpretation of the progression-free survival advantage. The agency also noted that Pluvicto showed no overall survival benefit relative to the comparator arm.
In its withdrawal notification, Novartis stated that feedback from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use indicated the committee would not be able to conclude, on the basis of the data provided, that the benefits of Pluvicto outweighed its risks in the applied indication.