The emergence of positive data from trials like PATINA creates a dilemma for oncologists treating patients who are already stable on an older maintenance therapy. The consensus suggests not altering a successful regimen to avoid disrupting patient stability, revealing a cautious approach to integrating new evidence into established care.
Related Insights
Despite compelling data from trials like PATINA, some patients with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer refuse maintenance endocrine therapy due to side effects. This highlights a real-world gap between clinical trial evidence and patient adherence, forcing oncologists to navigate patient preferences against optimal treatment protocols.
While pirtobrutinib works after covalent BTK inhibitors, no data shows covalent inhibitors work after pirtobrutinib failure. This uncertainty about future options makes clinicians cautious about using it as an initial therapy, especially for younger CLL patients who will need multiple treatments over their lifetime.
When a highly effective therapy like EV Pembro was approved for 'cisplatin ineligible' patients, the definition of 'ineligible' became very elastic in practice. This demonstrates that when a new treatment is seen as transformative, clinicians find ways to qualify patients, putting pressure on established guidelines.
Counterintuitively, adding palbociclib to maintenance therapy showed a favorable quality of life in the PATINA trial. Despite known toxicities, the drug delayed the time to first symptom progression. This suggests that the benefit of superior disease control can outweigh the negative impact of treatment side effects on patient-reported outcomes.
In the AMPLITUDE trial, only 16% of high-risk metastatic prostate cancer patients received docetaxel, despite it being allowed and indicated by disease characteristics. This suggests a real-world "chemophobia" or physician bias towards newer targeted therapies, even within a clinical trial setting.
While many CLL patients prefer fixed-duration therapy to avoid continuous medication, this preference is often overridden by practical logistics. The burden of increased monitoring and frequent clinic visits associated with fixed-duration regimens leads some patients to opt for continuous therapy instead.
Experts are divided on the optimal strategy for CT-DNA negative patients post-surgery. One side advocates for monitoring to spare patients from unnecessary treatment toxicity, while the other questions if this delay is non-inferior to immediate adjuvant therapy, a critical question not yet answered by trials.
Recent non-inferiority trials affirm that fixed-duration combination therapies are viable alternatives to continuous BTK inhibitors. However, clinicians must look beyond the headline conclusion, as numerical data can show slightly worse progression-free survival for high-risk subgroups within the acceptable non-inferiority margin, complicating treatment decisions.
Clinicians are hesitant to use newer, potentially safer non-covalent BTK inhibitors before established covalent inhibitors. While it's known that non-covalents work after covalents fail, the reverse is unproven, creating a one-way treatment path that reserves these newer agents for later lines of therapy.
The PSMA edition trial's fixed six-cycle Lutetium regimen, designed nearly a decade ago, is now seen as suboptimal. This illustrates how the long duration of clinical trials means their design may not reflect the latest scientific understanding (e.g., adaptive dosing) by the time results are published and debated.