A paradigm shift has taken place in the treatment strategy of prostate cancer, especially in de novo metastatic prostate cancer. The CHAARTED trial in 2015 1 and the LATTITUDE trial in 2017 2 proposed the clinical benefit of early intensive treatment with docetaxel or abiraterone in de novo metastatic prostate cancer. These two studies also defined the specific risk group among metastatic prostate cancer patients, such as high-volume and high-risk patients, which should benefit from upfront treatment. In the year 2020, the ENZAMET, ARCHES and TITAN trials released the results of randomized control trials. Among the several novel findings, one of the distinguished points might be that these trials allowed entry of any metastatic prostate cancer regardless of risk criteria. The benefit of upfront treatment with androgen receptor axis-targeted agents for overall survival (OS) was shown in the ENZAMET trial and TITAN trial, whereas the benefit in radiographic progressionfree survival (rPFS) was shown in the ARCHES trial. These results guide us toward upfront treatment with androgen receptor axis-targeted agents in de novo metastatic prostate cancer. Now, androgen receptor axis-targeted agents do not mainly apply to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, but also cover metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. One of the open questions is "How to translate the results of the global randomized control trials in the Asian population, including Japanese." Fukagai et al. demonstrated that Japanese advanced prostate cancer patients showed a favorable response rate to androgen deprivation therapy compared with that of white patients. 3 Kadono et al. reported the survival advantage of combined androgen blockade with vintage drugs for Japanese metastatic prostate cancer patients. 4 In the current Japanese subgroup analysis of the TITAN trial, although there are trends toward the clinical benefit of the upfront apalutamide treatment arm compared with a placebo, no significant difference was observed in terms of rPFS or OS. 5 However, the major limitation was that clinical trials were not designed to calculate the statistical significance in the Japanese subgroup. Therefore, the result of no significant P-value does not represent the absence of clinical significance. When looking at the hazard ratio (HR) between the Japanese subgroup and the overall population, the HR of OS was rather similar between the Japanese subgroup and the overall