Data from trials like Niagara suggests a powerful new paradigm for assessing treatment success. Combining urine tumor DNA (uTDNA) for local disease and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for systemic relapse offers a more dynamic view than traditional pathology and is poised to become the superior surrogate endpoint in bladder cancer trials.
Related Insights
In neoadjuvant settings, ctDNA monitoring allows for real-time therapy adjustment. Data from the iSpy platform shows 80% of hormone-positive patients clear ctDNA with half the chemotherapy, enabling de-escalation, while the remaining 20% can be identified for escalated treatment.
A key conceptual shift is viewing ctDNA not as a statistical risk marker, but as direct detection of molecular residual disease (MRD). This framing, similar to how a CT scan identifies metastases, explains its high positive predictive value and justifies its use in making critical treatment decisions.
Experts caution that the new consensus definition of cCR, combining imaging and cystoscopy, is for clinical trials only. Applying it prematurely in routine practice could harm patients, as its correlation with true pathologic response is still being validated with modern therapies.
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a powerful biomarker for identifying high-risk bladder cancer patients. However, its imperfection presents a new clinical dilemma: with a ~12% relapse rate even in ctDNA-negative patients, clinicians must decide whether to withhold adjuvant therapy and accept that risk, or overtreat the 88% who are likely cured.
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.
While circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a powerful prognostic marker, it is not yet part of the formal "clinical complete response" definition for bladder-sparing trials. Experts lack data on its ability to predict the superficial, non-muscle invasive relapses common in this setting.
The InVigor11 study was the first to show that detecting recurrence via a ctDNA test before it's visible on scans is not just a prognostic sign, but an actionable clinical state. Intervening with therapy at this early stage was proven to improve patient outcomes, establishing a new paradigm for cancer surveillance.
The main barrier to widespread ctDNA use is not its proven ability to predict who will recur (prognostic value). The challenge is the emerging, but not yet definitive, data on its ability to predict a patient's response to a specific therapy (predictive value).
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.
An expert oncologist identified a pathological complete response (pCR) rate over 50% as the benchmark that would fundamentally alter treatment. The EV Pembro trial's 57% pCR rate crossed this threshold, forcing a shift from a surgery-centric model toward bladder preservation strategies and systemic therapy.