The CREST trial showed benefit driven by patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS), while the Potomac trial showed a lack of benefit in the same subgroup. This stark inconsistency demonstrates that subgroup analyses, even for stratified factors, can be unreliable and are a weak basis for regulatory decisions or label restrictions.

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.

Although continuous BTK inhibitors have the most prospective data for high-risk CLL (17p/TP53 mutations), some highly motivated patients still opt for fixed-duration treatment. This requires a detailed conversation where clinicians must explain the trade-off: achieving a treatment-free period may come at the cost of needing second-line therapy sooner.

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 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.

The PR21 trial showed better overall survival for docetaxel followed by Lutetium, despite similar progression-free survival. The likely reason is not drug superiority but patient behavior: a higher percentage of patients complete the second therapy when starting with chemo, highlighting how treatment fatigue significantly impacts survival.

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.

The interpretation of ctDNA is context-dependent. Unlike in the adjuvant setting, in the neoadjuvant setting, remaining ctDNA positive post-treatment signifies that the current therapy has failed. These high-risk patients need a different therapeutic approach, not an extension of the ineffective one.

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.