Alan Tan

I guess you could argue those patients that went straight to radical cystectomy for whatever reason, you know, or were node positive.

For those negatives, yeah, I agree.

Every six weeks for negatives probably is a little bit of an overkill.

And I usually do every 12-week monitoring for people that are negative, that you think are probably already cured.

And yeah, they're going to get these CT DNA tests either in the clinic or with mobile phlebotomy.

And maybe it actually relieves scan anxiety, right?

Because if you're a CT DNA negative, you're less likely to have something show up in the scan.

But also, first of all, all of these data sets that we're talking about on the Vigor 10 and Vigor 11 are using a first-generation CT DNA assay using whole XM, looking at 16 variants.

Well, when I think about increasing the sensitivity for detecting at landmark, right, landmark is like four weeks or so after surgery.

I think about maybe increasing time points, so every three months longitudinally.

Some of these patients will convert later on, and I think we're going to be redefining adjuvant therapy later on by having patients treat upon molecular occurrence, just like they did with the Tombola study.

And then we're going to get into whole genome testing soon, where you have more variants that we're tracking, whether it's thousands of variants, et cetera.

We're going to get down to one part per million, maybe even better.

And so I think we're probably going to get that, you know, 89% detection rate at two years, probably closer to 95% at that point.

So, but you guys, you know, does this solidify things for you guys?

Were you guys using ctDNA before this data?

I do totally agree with Brad.

Like these patients that are MRD positive, they are destined to recur metastatically, right?

So why are we giving them weak sauce with single agent IO, right?

I think of the same thing with kidney cancer too.