Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
While testing for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the surveillance setting of early-stage breast cancer is available and is currently being used nationwide, it is unknown how breast oncologists are utilizing ctDNA testing and whether testing patterns and/or results are currently impacting clinical care. To further understand this utilization, we identified 7,044 patients with stage I-III breast cancer who underwent personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA testing for molecular residual disease (MRD) in the postsurgical setting between 2019–2025. ctDNA results and clinicopathologic data were abstracted from available clinical records and insurance claims. For 5692/7044 patients with ≥ 2 ctDNA tests after definitive surgery, the median (range) time of initial testing was 7.87 (0.0-47.3) months after surgery; median interval between ctDNA tests was 3.4 (0.2–31.4) months. The negative predictive value (NPV) of a single negative ctDNA test was high for all tumor subtypes, with the highest NPVs (> 97%) observed within 12 months of the test. MRD detection within 3 months post-surgery was strongly associated with worse distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS; HR: 6.5, 95%CI: 4.1–10.3, p = 1.99e-13). ctDNA levels increased closer to the time of clinical recurrence and varied by tumor subtype; for patients with a positive ctDNA test within 3 months before clinical recurrence, the median (range) ctDNA concentration was 19.0 (0.03-14,248) and 4.41 (0.01-2,493) MTM/mL for triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancers, respectively. In a subset analysis, positive ctDNA testing impacted clinical care for 36/44 (81.8%) patients with detectable ctDNA, leading to treatment changes in 7 patients, 4 of whom achieved ctDNA clearance following treatment change. These findings offer key insights into how personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA testing is being used in clinical practice as part of the management of care for patients with early breast cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lipsyc-Sharf et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: