Despite patient interest and marketing, clinical experts are cautious about routine ctDNA use in endometrial cancer. They struggle with interpreting results, worrying that a positive test could lead to unnecessary anxiety and premature or excessive treatment without clear evidence of benefit.

Despite emerging trial data, clinicians are not yet ready to change therapy based on ctDNA positivity alone. Key concerns cited include the absence of a proven survival benefit from early intervention, the potential to use future treatment lines prematurely, and overall feasibility. The consensus is that while promising, the technology is not yet ready for routine clinical decision-making.

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.

An expert oncologist advises against ordering ctDNA tests that merely provide a "good or a bad feeling" about prognosis. The most valuable use is when a positive or negative result clearly dictates a clinical action, such as when to stop or restart adjuvant therapy.

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 NCCN guidelines placing POLE testing first in the hierarchy, many US institutions do not perform it routinely because it currently does not alter standard-of-care treatment. Clinicians often only order the send-out test when a specific clinical trial (like RAINBO) requires it to de-escalate care.

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.

Oncologists are more comfortable using a positive ctDNA test to escalate care (e.g., recommend chemo for a low-risk Stage II patient). However, they are more hesitant to use a negative test to de-escalate or withhold standard chemo for higher-risk patients, pending more definitive trial data.

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.