While patients increasingly ask about ctDNA, clinicians are hesitant to use it for treatment decisions in ovarian cancer management. A rising ctDNA level may prompt more vigilant surveillance but does not yet trigger treatment initiation, as its correlation with survival outcomes is unproven.
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.
While not yet validated, ctDNA is being used by clinical experts as a de-escalation tool to provide confidence when stopping long-term maintenance therapies like PARP inhibitors. This novel application focuses on reducing treatment burden rather than solely detecting disease progression.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.