It's expensive, accuracy isn't very high, and no one has done the studies to demonstrate that it actually improves subject outcomes. By its very nature that type of research takes a long time because the investigators have to wait years to detect a difference in subject survival rates or other significant endpoints.
There's a huge amount of funding going into the liquid biopsy space so things will improve. But don't expect rapid changes in clinical practice.
Annual might not be any good. I knew a guy who had a history of colon cancer in his family. He got checked annually from his mid 30s on. At 46, a few months after a clear checkup, he visited his doctor who sent him for another check, and bam: he had cancer.
Absolutely right! This test is hyped. It has abysmally low sensitivity of 16% to detect stage I cancers and overall 44% for cancers of other stages. It is extremely poor sensitivity for any detection test.
There's a huge amount of funding going into the liquid biopsy space so things will improve. But don't expect rapid changes in clinical practice.