Circulating Tumor DNA in Bladder Cancer: Current Clinical Evidence and Emerging Multi-Omics Perspectives—A Narrative Review

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has emerged as a promising tool for real-time disease monitoring in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). This narrative review summarizes current clinical evidence regarding ctDNA across disease stages. Methods: We examine recent translational and clinical findings, incorporating key prospective data from practice-changing trials, as well as insights into minimal residual disease (MRD) detection, treatment escalation and de-escalation strategies, and systemic barriers to adoption. Results: Postoperative ctDNA positivity consistently identifies patients with molecular residual disease (MRD) who face a substantially higher risk of recurrence and mortality, frequently preceding radiographic relapse by several months. Prospective evidence now validates ctDNA as a predictive biomarker to guide adjuvant immunotherapy escalation, while sustained ctDNA negativity correlates with high long-term disease-free survival. Beyond plasma ctDNA, emerging multi-compartment liquid biopsies—integrating urinary tumor DNA (utDNA)—demonstrate enhanced sensitivity, particularly in bladder-sparing and local surveillance settings. Furthermore, integrating genomic ctDNA profiling with novel post-transcriptional layers like epitranscriptomics offers a functional framework to capture tumor adaptation under therapeutic pressure. However, clinical translation remains constrained by a lack of assay harmonization, variable analytical sensitivity, and the need for standardized intervention thresholds. Conclusions: Longitudinal liquid biopsies are rapidly shifting MIBC management from static, stage-based paradigms toward dynamic, molecularly informed precision oncology. While ctDNA-guided strategies show robust clinical utility, prospective interventional validation and technical standardization are required before widespread routine integration.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.