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.

The negative ANSA-RAD trial, when contrasted with the positive STAMPEDE trial, demonstrates that patient selection is paramount in adjuvant therapy. The difference in outcomes was driven by risk definition, not the drug. This reinforces that "negative" trials are clinically vital for defining which patient populations do not benefit, preventing widespread overtreatment.

For an older patient population, the ultimate goal in prostate cancer treatment might not be a traditional cure, but rather turning it into a quiescent, chronic disease manageable with well-tolerated therapy, similar to HIV. This reframes success as long-term control until a patient dies of other causes.

The EMBARK trial showed that enzalutamide monotherapy was superior to standard ADT monotherapy for metastasis-free survival. This suggests potent AR antagonism may be a more effective strategy than simply depleting the testosterone ligand, challenging the long-held dogma of ADT being the fundamental building block for systemic prostate cancer therapy.

The enzalutamide arms saw discontinuation rates of 20-25% due to adverse events. This high rate reflects a different risk calculation for patients who feel healthy and are asymptomatic. Unlike in advanced disease where patients tolerate more toxicity, this population has a very low threshold for side effects, making early intervention a significant trade-off.

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 control arm in the EMBARK study was blinded to PSA results, preventing physicians from intervening with standard-of-care AR antagonists at PSA progression. This design likely delayed subsequent effective therapies, making the control arm underperform and potentially exaggerating the overall survival benefit of the experimental arms.

An overall survival (OS) benefit in an adjuvant trial may not be meaningful for patients in systems (e.g., the U.S.) with guaranteed access to the same effective immunotherapy upon recurrence. The crucial, unanswered question is whether treating micrometastatic disease is inherently superior to treating macroscopic disease later, a distinction current trial data doesn't clarify.

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.