Historically, discussing adjuvant therapy for Stage III colon cancer was quick and straightforward, while Stage II was complex. The advent of ctDNA testing has reversed this dynamic. Stage II decisions are now clearer (treat if positive), while Stage III discussions have become much longer and more nuanced as clinicians integrate ctDNA data with patient preferences.
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.
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.
A study where celecoxib initially failed to show benefit was re-analyzed using ctDNA. The drug provided a substantial survival improvement (HR 0.55-0.58) specifically in ctDNA-positive patients. This demonstrates ctDNA's power not just for prognosis, but as a predictive biomarker to identify which patients will benefit from a targeted therapy.
Observational data from the BESPOKE study showed that the survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy was only seen in patients who tested positive for ctDNA post-surgery. In contrast, ctDNA-negative patients had overlapping survival curves whether they received chemotherapy or not, questioning its utility for that group.
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.
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.
Experts are divided on the optimal strategy for CT-DNA negative patients post-surgery. One side advocates for monitoring to spare patients from unnecessary treatment toxicity, while the other questions if this delay is non-inferior to immediate adjuvant therapy, a critical question not yet answered by trials.