Non-covalent BTK inhibitors like pirtobrutinib are currently approved for use after covalent BTK inhibitors fail. Moving them to the frontline setting, as studied in BRUIN-313, disrupts the established treatment pathway and creates uncertainty for managing relapsed disease, as the standard 'next step' is removed.

Lutetium faces criticism for its fixed 6-cycle regimen, which may be suboptimal as the PSMA target diminishes with ADT. However, this critique is rarely applied to other drugs like PARP inhibitors, which are given until progression. This highlights a double standard and the tension between using a fixed regimen for regulatory approval versus finding the optimal dose in practice.

With highly effective CLL therapies, primary causes of mortality are now infections and secondary cancers from immunodeficiency. Research is now focusing on immune reconstitution after treatment, marking a pivotal shift towards managing long-term survivorship challenges beyond just controlling the leukemia itself.

The DAYBREAK pivotal study focuses on third-line plus patients who have already failed both BTK and BCL2 inhibitors. By enrolling this high unmet need population, particularly those resistant to the newest non-covalent inhibitors, Neurix aims for an accelerated regulatory approval to get its drug to market faster.

For patients with oligometastatic disease who achieve a deep PSA response (e.g., to zero), oncologists consider finite treatment durations (e.g., 18-24 months) followed by observation. This "do less harm" approach challenges the standard of continuous therapy until progression, aiming for long-term treatment-free intervals.

The BRUIN-313 trial successfully compared pirtobrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab (BR). However, BR is no longer the frontline standard of care. This 'straw man' comparator makes it difficult to position pirtobrutinib against current preferred treatments like other BTK inhibitors or venetoclax regimens, limiting immediate clinical applicability.

A key clinical nuance in CLL is that not all prognostic markers are static. The IGHV mutation status remains unchanged, requiring a one-time test. However, chromosomal abnormalities like deletion 17p can evolve, necessitating re-evaluation at each relapse to guide subsequent therapy choices and adapt the treatment strategy.

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.

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.