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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
A key lesson in bladder cancer is that patient attrition is rapid between lines of therapy; many who relapse from localized disease never receive effective later-line treatments. This reality provides a strong rationale for moving the most effective therapies, like EV-pembrolizumab, to earlier settings to maximize the number of patients who can benefit.