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.

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.

The INTERCEPT study found only 2% of ctDNA-positive colorectal cancer patients clear the marker without intervention. This stable, high-risk baseline allows small trials to use ctDNA clearance as a rapid endpoint, potentially accelerating the development of new adjuvant therapies.

The practice-changing DYNAMIC trial showed that a ctDNA-guided strategy for stage II colorectal cancer reduces adjuvant chemotherapy use by 50%. Despite this significant de-escalation of treatment, patient outcomes and survival rates were identical to the standard-of-care approach.

A subset of breast cancers (10-15%) are "non-shedders," meaning they don't release detectable ctDNA. Patients with these tumors have excellent outcomes regardless of chemotherapy, suggesting that surgery alone might be a sufficient and less toxic treatment for this specific group.

In adjuvant bladder cancer trials, ctDNA status is both prognostic and predictive. Patients with positive ctDNA after surgery are at high risk of relapse but benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Conversely, ctDNA-negative patients have a lower risk and derive no benefit, making ctDNA a critical tool to avoid unnecessary, toxic therapy.

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.

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.