I only recently joined this discussion board. So I apologize if this angle has already been discussed (perhaps someone can point me to a relevant post/link).

I fully appreciate and understand the value of a test that can detect early stage cancers. While not a lifesaver for all cancers, it is is huge for things like colon, melanoma...

However, is there an equal focus on its applicability after first line treatment to see if continued therapy is necessary?

For instance, consider a patient with colorectal cancer detected by colonoscopy. They almost always start with surgery to remove the primary tumor. Then a pathology test stages the disease based on invasion of lymph nodes and neighbouring tissue. If stage I, II or III, what you are really being told is: "we don't know if this cancer has spread, but here are the likelihoods in % terms. If stage II or III, most people opt for chemo and/or radiation and the related misery.

In addition, the patient usually faces 5 years of surveillance tests (physical, CEA, CAT scans, X-rays, colonoscopy and so on). This is not only expensive, but very mentally taxing for patient and family.

So, my point is, aside from seeing big secondary tumors, all you currently have after surgery is CEA with all its false positives and false negatives. If recaf gave much more certainty, I wonder if a lot of people would forego the horror of chemo and just get periodic recaf tests. Is this followup angle for recaf being flogged as much as the original detection?