The term "oligometastatic" is problematic because it's "imaging agnostic," failing to distinguish between lesions found on highly sensitive PSMA PET versus conventional scans, which carry different prognoses. The working group advocates for the more precise term "PSMA-positive BCR" to define this specific disease state.

While PSMA PET scans are more sensitive, they create a clinical dilemma because pivotal trials defining treatment efficacy were based on conventional imaging (CT/bone scans). This forces oncologists to either re-image patients with older technology to match trial criteria or make treatment decisions based on PET data that lacks a clear evidence-based framework for response assessment.

The PCWG criteria are not consensus-based practice guidelines but are proposed frameworks for uniform data collection in trials. They are designed to be tested and validated (or disproven) by data, with the ultimate goal of qualifying biomarkers for drug approval.

The influential "2+2 rule" on bone scans, which accounts for treatment "flare," wasn't an arbitrary threshold. It was proposed as a working hypothesis to be tested and validated through numerous clinical trials. This exemplifies the data-driven, iterative process behind the PCWG criteria.

Intensive treatments like ADT plus an ARPI can suppress a patient's PSA so effectively that it becomes an unreliable marker of disease status. Patients may show radiographic progression on scans even while their PSA remains low and they feel clinically well. This discordance necessitates periodic imaging to avoid missing actual disease progression.

Experts believe molecular tests like Decipher and PTEN status are superior to simply counting bone lesions for guiding treatment. While not yet standard practice for all decisions, this represents a significant shift towards using underlying tumor biology to determine therapy, like adding docetaxel.

Even when trials like LITESPARK 022 and Keynote 564 use identical eligibility criteria, outdated staging systems result in patient populations with different underlying risks. This makes direct comparison of outcomes between trials, even for the same drug, an unfair and statistically flawed analysis that ignores the function of a control arm.

Even when testing drugs in heavily pre-treated patients, clinical trials incorporate subtle biological selection criteria. For instance, the COMPASS trial excludes patients with visceral metastases, a tactic to enrich for a population more likely to respond and avoid the most aggressive disease subtypes.

The ongoing Alliance ASPIRE trial is one of the first to use tumor biology, specifically alterations in suppressor genes like P10, P53, and RB1, as a primary stratification factor. This marks a significant move away from relying on imaging-based volume criteria (high vs. low) to determine prognosis and predict who may benefit from chemotherapy.