Breast cancer specialists advocate for patients to meet the entire care team before surgery to create a comprehensive plan and reduce anxiety. However, insurance carriers often create administrative and financial barriers that prevent these coordinated, upfront consultations, leading to a more fragmented and stressful patient experience.

Despite strong data favoring pre-surgical systemic therapy, a surgeon argues that many patients will continue to undergo surgery first. This is due to real-world factors like surgeons being the point of diagnosis, urgent symptoms requiring rapid intervention, and patient preferences to have the tumor removed immediately.

When a sentinel lymph node biopsy is skipped, radiation oncologists lack crucial staging information. This can make them hesitant to recommend less-invasive partial breast radiation, even if a patient otherwise qualifies. They may instead recommend whole breast radiation to treat any potential, unconfirmed microscopic disease in the axilla.

With highly effective neoadjuvant therapies now available, the surgeon's role in muscle-invasive bladder cancer is evolving. They are moving from being the primary decider and treater to being a key manager of a 'perioperative bundle,' where their first goal is often to get patients to medical oncology for systemic treatment.

While primarily known for guiding radiation, surgeons place clips in the lumpectomy cavity for their own future reference. These markers are critical for guiding re-excision if margins are positive and help radiologists accurately monitor the surgical site for recurrence on future mammograms, distinguishing scar tissue from new concerns.

Modern breast cancer treatment has shifted from a 'one-size-fits-all' aggressive approach to a highly individualized one. By de-escalating care—doing smaller surgeries, minimizing radiation, and sometimes omitting chemotherapy or lymph node biopsies—clinicians can achieve better outcomes with fewer long-term complications for patients with favorable disease characteristics.

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.

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.