CaptnAmerica:
Below a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis that pooled 64 studies and >2,760 mCRC patients receiving systemic therapy. Across studies, unfavorable ctDNA kinetics during treatment were consistently associated with worse outcomes, or, if you want, favorable ctDNA measurements were consistently associated with good outcomes.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12969389/
The authors concluded that ctDNA kinetics during treatment have strong prognostic value in metastatic colorectal cancer. This provides strong evidence for using early ctDNA changes (clearance) as a surrogate marker in mCRC.
Also: https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S092...5/fulltext
This study specifically investigated whether early ctDNA variation (ΔctDNA) predicted progression-free and overall survival and reported that early ctDNA decrease predicted survival outcomes. This is very close conceptually to what the CLOVER numbers are (hopefully) highlighting.
Now, if you want to go through multiple datasets, this study from ctMoniTR should put your doubts at ease:
https://friendsofcancerresearch.org/ctdna/
- ctDNA decreases were associated with improved OS and PFS.
- ctDNA clearance during therapy was associated with improved OS and PFS.
- Reductions measured as early as 0-7 weeks after treatment initiation correlated with overall survival.
As you can see, ctDNA is widely accepted as a useful biomarker, as a matter of fact, now is it is driving treatment decisions. A 2025 review in NPJ Precision Oncology describes ctDNA as a dynamic biomarker for monitoring treatment response, noting its growing use for real-time assessment of therapeutic benefit.
The review summarizes evidence that molecular response in blood often appears before conventional imaging-based response. That's why many investigators view ctDNA as a potential leading indicator of treatment activity, whereas ORR is a later and stricter endpoint.
So, ctDNA is not batting average, is total RUNS scored when the old lady sings.
Below a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis that pooled 64 studies and >2,760 mCRC patients receiving systemic therapy. Across studies, unfavorable ctDNA kinetics during treatment were consistently associated with worse outcomes, or, if you want, favorable ctDNA measurements were consistently associated with good outcomes.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12969389/
The authors concluded that ctDNA kinetics during treatment have strong prognostic value in metastatic colorectal cancer. This provides strong evidence for using early ctDNA changes (clearance) as a surrogate marker in mCRC.
Also: https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S092...5/fulltext
This study specifically investigated whether early ctDNA variation (ΔctDNA) predicted progression-free and overall survival and reported that early ctDNA decrease predicted survival outcomes. This is very close conceptually to what the CLOVER numbers are (hopefully) highlighting.
Now, if you want to go through multiple datasets, this study from ctMoniTR should put your doubts at ease:
https://friendsofcancerresearch.org/ctdna/
- ctDNA decreases were associated with improved OS and PFS.
- ctDNA clearance during therapy was associated with improved OS and PFS.
- Reductions measured as early as 0-7 weeks after treatment initiation correlated with overall survival.
As you can see, ctDNA is widely accepted as a useful biomarker, as a matter of fact, now is it is driving treatment decisions. A 2025 review in NPJ Precision Oncology describes ctDNA as a dynamic biomarker for monitoring treatment response, noting its growing use for real-time assessment of therapeutic benefit.
The review summarizes evidence that molecular response in blood often appears before conventional imaging-based response. That's why many investigators view ctDNA as a potential leading indicator of treatment activity, whereas ORR is a later and stricter endpoint.
So, ctDNA is not batting average, is total RUNS scored when the old lady sings.
15
