ClinicalMetric Research Team · Last Reviewed: June 2026 · Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · FDA · NIH
◆ Clinical Trial Intelligence — Key Facts
  • 400,000+ active trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov across 200+ countries (2025)
  • Only ~12% of drugs entering clinical trials ultimately receive FDA approval
  • Average clinical trial takes 6–13 years from Phase 1 to regulatory approval
  • ~40% of trials fail to recruit sufficient participants — the #1 reason trials stop early
  • All trials must register on ClinicalTrials.gov under the FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA 2007)
← Back to Insights
Diagnostics Last Reviewed: June 2026 CM-INS-142 // JUNE 2026

Liquid Biopsy in Clinical Trials 2026: ctDNA, MRD, and Grail's Multi-Cancer Detection Data

The central promise of liquid biopsy — that a tube of blood can tell you something about cancer that a tissue biopsy can't, or can tell you something equivalent with far less invasiveness — is now supported by a body of clinical evidence that would have seemed implausibly optimistic ten years ago. ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) has moved from a research tool to an approved companion diagnostic to a clinical trial endpoint, sometimes all three simultaneously. The GALAXY trial in colon cancer showed that post-surgical ctDNA status is a stronger predictor of recurrence than any pathological staging variable in current use. Grail's PATHFINDER study demonstrated multi-cancer early detection from a single blood draw with acceptable specificity. What this means for how clinical trials are designed — and how patients are stratified within them — is changing rapidly.

Medical Notice

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Liquid biopsy tests have variable FDA clearance status; some are approved companion diagnostics while others are LDTs or research use only. Consult your oncologist about which tests are appropriate for your clinical situation.

Summary

Guardant360 CDx is FDA-approved as a companion diagnostic for multiple solid tumor indications. GALAXY trial: post-surgical ctDNA clearance predicted disease-free survival in stage II–IV colon cancer better than pathological staging (ctDNA-positive: HR 0.79 for adjuvant chemotherapy benefit; ctDNA-negative: no adjuvant benefit detectable). PATHFINDER (Grail Galleri): multi-cancer early detection in 6,621 adults, 99.5% specificity, sensitivity 15.1% overall (71.4% in stage III–IV cancers). MCED tests are not yet FDA-approved but multiple registration trials are underway. ctDNA-guided de-escalation trials in breast (NEST) and intensification trials in colorectal cancer (CIRCULATE-US, DYNAMIC-II) will define the next clinical standard.

ClinicalMetric Analysis

  • ctDNA as a surrogate endpoint in adjuvant trials has strong biological rationale but hasn't been prospectively validated as a trial endpoint — that distinction matters for regulatory submissions. The GALAXY data shows that ctDNA positivity after curative-intent surgery predicts clinical recurrence with high hazard ratios. But a surrogate biomarker becoming a primary endpoint requires prospective evidence that an intervention that improves the biomarker also improves clinical outcomes — the "surrogate validity" standard. DYNAMIC-II and CIRCULATE-US are designed exactly to generate this evidence: treat ctDNA-positive patients with intensified therapy and measure whether clinical recurrence decreases. If those trials are positive, ctDNA clearance can be submitted to the FDA as a validated surrogate endpoint, enabling future colon cancer trials to be smaller and faster. The oncology community is using ctDNA as if this validation has already happened; technically, it hasn't — and the regulatory pathway remains incomplete.
  • The Galleri multi-cancer detection test's sensitivity numbers require careful contextualization: 15% overall sensitivity means it catches 1 in 7 early cancers — but those it catches disproportionately include high-lethality, hard-to-screen cancers. The PATHFINDER 99.5% specificity means roughly 1 in 200 people with a positive result have a false positive — which in a screening-level population generates a meaningful absolute number of unnecessary diagnostic workups. The 15.1% overall sensitivity is real but misses the critical stratification: sensitivity was 71.4% in stage III–IV disease (where early detection has less impact) and much lower in stage I–II (where early detection matters most). Sensitivity for stage I specifically is in the 5–15% range for most tumor types. The clinical utility case for MCED tests depends on whether the subset of early-stage cancers detected by ctDNA at an actionable stage is large enough to shift population-level mortality — a question that requires the large ongoing PATHFINDER 2 and NHS-Galleri RCT data, not the smaller observational studies that have been published so far.
  • Tumor-informed versus tumor-naive ctDNA assays have meaningfully different analytical sensitivities, and the distinction matters when interpreting MRD studies. Tumor-informed assays (Signatera, PersonalizeDx) sequence the primary tumor, identify patient-specific somatic variants, and design a personalized PCR panel targeting those specific mutations. This allows detection of ctDNA at allele frequencies below 0.01% — substantially more sensitive than tumor-naive panels. Tumor-naive panels (Guardant360, FoundationOne Liquid CDx) use fixed gene panels covering common cancer mutations without patient-specific optimization. For MRD in the adjuvant setting — where ctDNA concentrations are very low — tumor-informed assays consistently outperform tumor-naive assays. For advanced metastatic disease biomarker profiling — where ctDNA levels are higher and variant diversity matters more — tumor-naive broader panels have advantages. Interpreting published ctDNA literature requires knowing which assay category was used and whether the sensitivity is appropriate for the clinical question.

GALAXY Trial: Colon Cancer MRD Standard

The GALAXY trial (NCT04008030, part of the CIRCULATE-Japan consortium) enrolled 1,039 patients with stage II–IV colon cancer resected with curative intent. ctDNA was measured by Signatera (tumor-informed, 16-variant personalized panel) at 4 weeks post-surgery and serially thereafter. Results published in Nature Medicine 2022 showed:

ctDNA-positive at 4 weeks: DFS HR 10.0 (95% CI 6.8–14.7). The ctDNA-positive hazard ratio is so large that it dwarfs conventional staging variables — stage III patients who were ctDNA-negative had better outcomes than stage II patients who were ctDNA-positive. For adjuvant chemotherapy analysis (observational, post-hoc): among ctDNA-positive patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved DFS (HR 0.79). Among ctDNA-negative patients, no adjuvant chemotherapy benefit was detectable — raising the hypothesis that ctDNA-negative stage III patients could safely avoid chemotherapy. This is the basis for the DYNAMIC-II and CIRCULATE-US prospective randomized trials.

ctDNA in Early Breast Cancer: The De-escalation Question

The ARTEMIS-BEACON trial (NCT04915183) tests ctDNA-guided treatment in early breast cancer: patients who achieve ctDNA clearance after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are randomized to standard vs de-escalated adjuvant therapy. The hypothesis is that ctDNA negativity identifies patients who don't need intensive adjuvant therapy, potentially sparing chemotherapy toxicity without compromising cure rates. This is a clinical de-escalation trial using a biomarker endpoint — the design template that multiple other cancer types are now following.

The NEST-1 and NEST-2 trials (Natera-sponsored) similarly test whether ctDNA-guided intensification (treating ctDNA-positive patients with additional therapy) improves outcomes in early breast cancer. The Breast Cancer INDEX (BCI) and Signatera platform are being evaluated in parallel, creating a competitive landscape for MRD-guided breast cancer trials that should generate robust comparative data by 2027–2028.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection: PATHFINDER and the NHS Trial

Grail's Galleri test uses cfDNA methylation patterns (rather than somatic mutation detection) to identify cancer-derived DNA and predict tissue of origin. In PATHFINDER (NCT04241796), 6,621 participants ≥50 years had blood drawn for Galleri testing; participants with positive signals underwent diagnostic workup. 92 had positive results; 35 were confirmed cancers (38% PPV), with 21 of 35 being cancers with no standard screening recommendation — the clinical utility subset that justifies the test's existence. Overall sensitivity at 99.5% specificity was 15.1%.

The NHS-Galleri trial (UK, 140,000 participants) is the large RCT that will determine whether MCED screening with Galleri reduces stage IV cancer diagnosis and cancer mortality in a real-world population. Results are expected around 2026–2027 — this will be the most important MCED dataset to date. Grail has submitted a Breakthrough Device request to the FDA; approval before the NHS RCT results are available remains uncertain.

Liquid Biopsy in Clinical Trial Context

For patients currently enrolled in or considering clinical trials, liquid biopsy is increasingly appearing as either an enrollment requirement (Guardant360 CDx is a required companion diagnostic for several EGFR, RET, and PIK3CA-targeted therapy trials) or as an exploratory biomarker endpoint. Patients in colon cancer trials may be asked to provide serial blood draws for ctDNA monitoring as part of the MRD substudy. Many phase II/III trials now include a ctDNA translational component — not as a gating criterion but as an exploratory biomarker that may support label expansion or dose selection for follow-on trials. Participation in the liquid biopsy component of a trial typically adds only a blood draw at specific protocol-defined timepoints, not additional procedures.

EK
◆ Founder & Platform Director
Efi Kara
Electrical & Computer Engineer · 30 years IT management · responsible for platform implementation, editorial direction, and growth strategy.
◆ Research & Analysis
IA
Ioannis Anagnostopoulos
Clinical Research Analyst & ISO Inspector

B.Sc. Agricultural Sciences. ISO inspector and compliance auditor. Researches and writes ClinicalMetric Insights using primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EudraCT, PubMed.

◆ Medical Review
GA
Georgios Anagas
Medical Content Reviewer

Physiotherapy student. Reviews Insights articles for medical accuracy and patient relevance — condition descriptions, eligibility language, and treatment context for patients and caregivers.

⚕️ Patient-facing medical accuracy review
◆ Technical Review
AA
Achi Anagas
Platform & Data Infrastructure Lead

B.Sc. Informatics & Communications (in progress). Responsible for ClinicalMetric's technical architecture, API integrations with ClinicalTrials.gov, and data accuracy verification.

🔄 Trial data updated daily from ClinicalTrials.gov
◆ Editorial & Research Standards
Stage 1 — Primary Research
ClinicalTrials.gov registry data (NIH/NLM), FDA documentation, EudraCT, and peer-reviewed literature. Trial status, phase, eligibility, and enrollment data verified at source.
Stage 2 — Medical Accuracy Review
Cross-checked against PubMed/MEDLINE literature and FDA/EMA communications. Eligibility criteria and patient safety information verified for accuracy.
Stage 3 — Registry Verification
Phase classification, enrollment status, sponsor identity, and trial location cross-referenced against official registry records before publication.
⚕️ Medical Disclaimer: ClinicalMetric provides research intelligence only. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before making clinical decisions or participating in a trial.
Publisher
ClinicalMetric
Independent Clinical Trial Intelligence
Tracks 400,000+ active clinical trials worldwide. Updated daily from ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH/NLM), FDA IND registry, and EudraCT (EU Clinical Trials Register).
Research Methodology
Articles are researched from primary registry sources: ClinicalTrials.gov XML feeds, FDA trial databases, and peer-reviewed literature. Trial status, phase, enrollment, and eligibility data is sourced directly from registry APIs — not secondary aggregators.
Primary Data Sources
Accuracy & Updates
Trial status, enrollment, and eligibility information changes frequently. ClinicalMetric syncs with ClinicalTrials.gov daily. Editorial articles are reviewed quarterly or when major protocol amendments are published. Always verify trial status directly on ClinicalTrials.gov before making clinical decisions.
◆ Live Clinical Trial Feed
Browse 400,000+ Active Clinical Trials
Updated daily from ClinicalTrials.gov · Recruiting trials by condition, phase, sponsor
Search Active Trials →
About ClinicalMetric → Research Methodology → Medical Disclaimer → LinkedIn →

Related Insights

Precision Medicine
Biomarker-Driven Clinical Trials 2026
Colorectal
Colorectal Cancer Clinical Trials 2026
AI & Technology
AI-Discovered Drugs in Human Trials
◆ Related Research Guides
Trial DesignAdaptive Clinical Trial Design 2026: Seamless Phases, Response-Adaptive Randomization, and Platform TrialsRead guide →Data ScienceAI in Clinical Data Management 2026: EDC, Risk-Based Monitoring, and eTMF AutomationRead guide →PulmonologyAsthma Clinical Trials 2026: Biologics for Severe Asthma & New TreatmentsRead guide →CardiologyAtrial Fibrillation Clinical Trials 2026: New Ablation Techniques, Anticoagulants & Reversal AgentsRead guide →
ClinicalMetric Intelligence Team
Clinical Trial Research & Analysis · Last updated April 2026
Analysis compiled from ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH/NLM), FDA trial registry data, and peer-reviewed clinical research. ClinicalMetric tracks 400,000+ active clinical trials worldwide, updated daily from the ClinicalTrials.gov AACT database.
Get Weekly Clinical Trial Alerts
New recruiting trials from NIH, NCI, and 40+ sponsors — every Monday. Free forever.
◆ Clinical Trial Intelligence at a Glance
400K+
Active trials tracked
200+
Countries with active trials
4
Clinical trial phases
Daily
Data refresh from ClinicalTrials.gov
◆ Clinical Trial Phase Transition Success Rates
Phase 1 → Phase 2 success ~63%
Phase 2 → Phase 3 success ~32%
Phase 3 → Approval ~58%
Overall FDA approval rate ~12%
Source: Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) Clinical Development Success Rates — approximate industry averages.
◆ Clinical Trial Development Timeline
Mo 1–6
Preclinical + IND Filing
Mo 6–18
Phase 1 (Safety)
Mo 18–48
Phase 2 (Efficacy)
Mo 48–84
Phase 3 (Pivotal)
Mo 84–96
FDA Review / NDA
Mo 96+
Approval + Phase 4
Timeline is approximate. Total development from preclinical to approval averages 6–13 years.
About the Author
ClinicalMetric Research Team
Clinical Trial Intelligence Specialists · clinicalmetric.com
Our analysts monitor 400,000+ clinical trials daily across oncology, neurology, cardiology, and rare diseases. All data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov and FDA.gov.
🔬 400K+ trials tracked 🌍 200+ countries 🔄 Updated: June 2026
◆ Common Questions About Clinical Trials
What is a clinical trial? +
A clinical trial is a research study involving human participants designed to evaluate medical interventions — such as drugs, devices, or behavioral strategies. Trials follow a structured protocol and are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. They progress through phases: Phase 1 (safety), Phase 2 (efficacy), Phase 3 (large-scale comparison), and Phase 4 (post-market surveillance).
How do I find clinical trials I'm eligible for? +
You can search ClinicalTrials.gov or use ClinicalMetric to filter by condition, phase, or location. Each trial listing includes eligibility criteria such as age range, sex, diagnosis, and prior treatment history. Contact the study team directly or ask your physician to refer you to a relevant trial.
Are clinical trials safe to participate in? +
Clinical trials are conducted under strict ethical and regulatory oversight, including IRB approval and FDA regulation in the US. All participants must give informed consent after reviewing potential risks and benefits. Phase 1 trials carry more uncertainty, while Phase 3 trials involve interventions with an established safety profile. Participation is always voluntary and you may withdraw at any time.
What are the phases of clinical trials? +
Clinical trials progress through four main phases. Phase 1 tests safety and dosing in a small group (20–80 people). Phase 2 evaluates efficacy and side effects in a larger group (100–300). Phase 3 compares the intervention against standard treatments in thousands of participants. Phase 4 occurs after approval and monitors long-term effects in the general population.
Do participants get paid for joining clinical trials? +
Many clinical trials offer compensation for time and travel expenses, though payment structures vary widely by study. Compensation is not intended to be coercive. Some trials also cover treatment costs for participants. Always review the consent form carefully and ask the study coordinator about any financial considerations before enrolling.
Browse by Phase
Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4
Browse by Condition
CancerDiabetesAlzheimer'sDepressionHeart DiseaseCOVID-19Parkinson'sMultiple Sclerosis
ClinicalMetric — Independent clinical trial intelligence platform. Not affiliated with NIH, ClinicalTrials.gov, the U.S. FDA, or any pharmaceutical company, hospital, or clinical research organization. Trial data is sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Do not make any treatment, enrollment, or health decisions based solely on information found here — always consult a qualified healthcare professional. Full Disclaimer  ·  Last Reviewed: April 2026  ·  Data Methodology