Get your free personalized podcast brief
We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
While the need for prospective trials dominates the ctDNA discussion, a more fundamental obstacle is the lack of standardization between assay types (e.g., tumor-informed vs. agnostic). Without a common measurement approach, data from disparate trials cannot be pooled to create a universally accepted surrogate endpoint for regulatory approval.
Related Insights
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.
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.
Advancing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a surrogate endpoint is stalled because the necessary large-scale, prospective validation studies are too expensive for any single company. The path forward requires a massive public-private partnership to fund research and establish standards, otherwise progress will remain incremental.
The INTERCEPT study found only 2% of ctDNA-positive colorectal cancer patients clear the marker without intervention. This stable, high-risk baseline allows small trials to use ctDNA clearance as a rapid endpoint, potentially accelerating the development of new adjuvant therapies.
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.
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 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.
ctDNA testing does more than identify targetable mutations. The mutant allele fraction provides a quasi-volumetric measure of tumor burden, and its early clearance on therapy (as seen in MONALEESA-3) is a strong prognostic indicator for survival, adding value beyond standard radiographic assessment.
