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.

The SERENA-6 trial showed improved survival by switching therapy upon ctDNA detection of ESR1 mutations. However, it required screening over 3,300 patients to randomize just 315, highlighting the immense scale, cost, and patient drop-off of applying this serial monitoring strategy in standard clinical practice.

A study switching therapy based on ctDNA-detected ESR1 mutations revealed patients felt significantly better after the switch, even without visible tumor progression on scans. This counterintuitive finding suggests molecular progression has a subclinical impact on quality of life, supporting proactive, biomarker-driven treatment changes before patients clinically deteriorate.

Dr. Pusztai clarifies the ctDNA lexicon: "Molecular relapse" is when a supposedly cured patient turns ctDNA positive during surveillance. "Molecular progression" is when a metastatic patient on therapy develops new resistance mutations detectable in ctDNA before clinical progression. This specific terminology is key for precise clinical decision-making.

Despite showing a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit, oncologists advise against the SERENA-6 strategy of switching therapy upon detecting an ESR1 mutation before clinical progression. The lack of overall survival data, flawed trial comparison (PFS vs PFS2), and significant cost burdens make this approach premature for clinical practice.

While promising, current ctDNA technology is not robust enough to justify stopping effective neoadjuvant systemic therapy in bladder cancer, even if a patient becomes ctDNA negative. Experts argue against using it to de-escalate treatment outside of a clinical trial due to the risk of undertreating a lethal disease.

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.

The SERENA-6 trial showed switching to an oral SERD upon ctDNA detection of an ESR1 mutation improved PFS. However, an FDA advisory committee voted against it, citing a lack of "clinically meaningful benefit" without an overall survival advantage, a crossover design, or clear quality-of-life improvement, setting a high bar for this strategy.

The standard of care for GIST is evolving to mandate molecular testing at two key points: initial diagnosis and at the time of progression on first-line therapy. Using ctDNA at progression is now deemed critical to identify acquired resistance mechanisms, which directly informs the selection of subsequent, more effective therapies and avoids ineffective treatments.