ctDNA is not a simple positive/negative binary test. Like PSA in prostate cancer, the quantitative level of ctDNA correlates with patient outcomes. Higher levels indicate a worse prognosis and a faster time to relapse, allowing for more nuanced risk stratification beyond a simple presence or absence of the biomarker.

Data from trials like Niagara suggests a powerful new paradigm for assessing treatment success. Combining urine tumor DNA (uTDNA) for local disease and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for systemic relapse offers a more dynamic view than traditional pathology and is poised to become the superior surrogate endpoint in bladder cancer trials.

Circulating tumor DNA is a powerful tool for detecting systemic minimal residual disease but is not sensitive enough for local, non-muscle invasive recurrences. This limitation means traditional surveillance like cystoscopy remains indispensable, as a negative ctDNA test can provide a false sense of security about local control.

Upcoming trials like RETAIN and IMVigor011 are using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to guide complex treatment choices in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. This biomarker-driven approach aims to personalize therapy, potentially enabling bladder preservation for some patients and identifying others who need additional adjuvant treatment.

The future of bladder cancer surveillance may involve using two types of liquid biopsies in tandem. A patient who is utDNA-positive but ctDNA-negative likely has a local, primary bladder issue. Conversely, a utDNA-negative but ctDNA-positive result suggests the cancer has already spread systemically, providing crucial information for treatment planning.

Professor Powles predicts that urinary tumor DNA (utDNA) will become the key biomarker for detecting local relapse in bladder-sparing strategies. He notes that blood-based ctDNA is poor at identifying non-muscle invasive disease, creating a clear and necessary role for utDNA to assess local risk and guide interventions more accurately.

In bladder preservation strategies, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from blood is poor at detecting non-muscle invasive local recurrences. This limitation makes urine tumor DNA (utDNA) a necessary future tool for monitoring patients under active surveillance, potentially replacing invasive cystoscopies.

Beyond a simple positive/negative result, the quantitative level of ctDNA is highly prognostic in bladder cancer. Similar to PSA in prostate cancer, higher ctDNA levels correlate with a significantly worse prognosis, offering a more nuanced risk assessment tool than a binary test.

Experts suggest urinary tumor DNA (utDNA) may better reflect local disease in the bladder, while circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) indicates systemic disease. Using both tests in parallel could provide a more complete picture, with dual-negative results potentially becoming a key criterion for safely pursuing bladder-sparing approaches.