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.

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.

A common assumption that older patients may prefer simpler, continuous medication regimens is often incorrect. Clinical experience shows that the vast majority of patients, regardless of age, are interested in a time-limited therapy option, provided it can be delivered conveniently without infusions.

With pirtobrutinib, time to next treatment often exceeds progression-free survival. This discrepancy exists because disease progression is frequently slow and asymptomatic, meaning clinicians do not need to switch therapies immediately upon seeing radiographic changes, allowing for longer treatment duration.

A critical distinction exists between a clinical adverse event (AE) and its impact on a patient's quality of life (QOL). For example, a drop in platelet count is a reportable AE, but the patient may be asymptomatic and feel fine. This highlights the need to look beyond toxicity tables to understand the true patient experience.

For patients with otherwise well-controlled disease who develop isolated oligoprogression in the brain, evidence suggests a better survival outcome from adding local therapy (like SRS) and continuing the current effective systemic therapy, rather than switching the systemic regimen entirely.

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.

While standard guidelines dictate treating only symptomatic CLL, some patients experience debilitating anxiety from 'watch and wait.' In rare cases, clinicians may initiate therapy primarily to improve quality of life by removing this significant psychological stress.