Not all ctDNA clearance is equal. Data from KEYNOTE-361 shows chemotherapy clears ctDNA more frequently (40%) but with poor correlation to outcomes. In contrast, immunotherapy clears ctDNA less often (11%), but those patients who do clear it experience brilliant, more durable outcomes, suggesting a different biological mechanism of response.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a powerful tool in bladder cancer. A positive result post-surgery is a strong indicator for initiating adjuvant therapy. However, a negative result does not guarantee a cure, as a notable percentage of these patients still relapse, making clinicians cautious about withholding treatment based on a single negative test.

An expert oncologist advises against ordering ctDNA tests that merely provide a "good or a bad feeling" about prognosis. The most valuable use is when a positive or negative result clearly dictates a clinical action, such as when to stop or restart adjuvant therapy.

Despite significant interest, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is not yet an actionable tool for guiding the duration of maintenance immunotherapy in endometrial cancer. While studies like DuoE show ctDNA levels correlate with outcomes, there is no evidence to support using its clearance to decide when to stop treatment. It remains a prognostic, not a predictive, biomarker for this purpose.

In neoadjuvant therapy, a patient's long-term outcome is better predicted by stopping tumor DNA shedding (ctDNA clearance) than by achieving pathologic complete response (pCR), the traditional gold standard. This redefines what constitutes a successful treatment response before surgery.

In adjuvant bladder cancer trials, ctDNA status is both prognostic and predictive. Patients with positive ctDNA after surgery are at high risk of relapse but benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Conversely, ctDNA-negative patients have a lower risk and derive no benefit, making ctDNA a critical tool to avoid unnecessary, toxic therapy.

In neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment, patients with residual cancer post-therapy remain at high risk of recurrence (10-20%) even if their ctDNA tests are negative. This finding suggests that the physical presence of residual disease is a critical factor, and ctDNA status alone cannot justify forgoing additional adjuvant therapy in this cohort.

A positive ctDNA result post-surgery in an immunotherapy-naive patient warrants starting treatment. Conversely, if a patient received neoadjuvant immunotherapy and remains ctDNA positive after surgery, it signals resistance, making continuation of the same therapy illogical and creating a clinical paradox.

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.