For colorectal cancer patients in surveillance, serial ctDNA testing offers profound reassurance. Data shows that after achieving one year of consistently negative results, the probability of a future recurrence drops to just 0.9%, providing a level of confidence previously unattainable with other methods.
Related Insights
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.
A positive ctDNA test indicating minimal residual disease is strongly linked to recurrence. This expert argues clinicians have an obligation to act on this information, even without definitive guidelines. Framing inaction as unacceptable challenges the passive "wait-and-see" approach.
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.
The practice-changing DYNAMIC trial showed that a ctDNA-guided strategy for stage II colorectal cancer reduces adjuvant chemotherapy use by 50%. Despite this significant de-escalation of treatment, patient outcomes and survival rates were identical to the standard-of-care approach.
AI identified circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing as a highly sensitive method for detecting cancer recurrence earlier than scans or symptoms. Despite skepticism from oncologists who deemed it unproven, the speaker plans to use it for proactive monitoring—a strategy he would not have known about otherwise.
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.
Contrary to some physicians' concerns, patient survey data shows that over 80% value ctDNA testing. They perceive it not as a source of anxiety, but as a way to be proactive in their care. This finding dismantles a key argument used by some clinicians to resist adoption.
Experts warn against over-interpreting a single negative ctDNA test after surgery, clarifying that these patients still face a significant 25-30% risk of recurrence. The biomarker's true prognostic power comes from serial testing that shows a patient remains persistently negative over time.
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).
While a positive ctDNA test clearly signals the need for adjuvant therapy, a negative result is less actionable for deciding initial treatment. The key prognostic value comes from being *serially* undetectable over time, information that is not available when the immediate post-surgery treatment decision must be made.