Translating ctDNA into cutaneous melanoma care: An international expert survey.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Geidel Glenn, Fekade Nathan, Raabe Katharina, Smit Daniel J, Adam Laura, Heidrich Isabel, Rünger Alessandra, Kött Julian, Zell Tim, Amaral Teresa, Ascierto Paolo A, Corrie Pippa, Dummer Reinhard, Eggermont Alexander, Guo Jun, Hassel Jessica C, Jalving Mathilde, Johnson Douglas B, Kandolf Lidija, Kirkwood John M, Lebbé Celeste, Lee Rebecca, Long Georgina V, Lorigan Paul, Malvehy Josep, Mangana Joanna, Mohr Peter, Patel Sapna P, Rizos Helen, Robert Caroline, Schadendorf Dirk, Sondak Vernon K, Svane Inge Marie, Wainstein Alberto, Zager Jonathan S, Pantel Klaus, Hauschild Axel, Gebhardt Christoffer, Melanoma World Society Study Group
Аннотация
METHODS: A web-based survey of 116 members of the Melanoma World Society Study Group assessed international expert opinions on ctDNA utility across predefined clinical scenarios. The questionnaire included 18 general questions on ctDNA use and 5 clinical vignettes with de-identified patient data and retrospectively obtained ctDNA results.
RESULTS: ctDNA was rated most valuable for detecting minimal residual disease (mean score 3.63), surveillance of recurrent disease (3.85), and stage IV melanoma (3.82), with limited utility in early stages. Experts considered ctDNA superior to S100 and LDH for early relapse detection and identifying progressive disease. Most participants (80%) agreed that ctDNA correlates with radiographic response, and 82% favored its integration into routine follow-ups. In urgent high-tumor-burden settings, 82.8% would initiate BRAFi/MEKi therapy based on ctDNA if tissue analysis was pending, and 93.9% if unavailable. For central nervous system lesions, 62% did not support blood ctDNA, while 66% considered cerebrospinal fluid valuable. Pragmatic approaches with small to mid-size targeted panels and short turnaround times were preferred. Major barriers included the need for prospective trials (85%), standardized guidelines (83%), and reimbursement policies (82%).
CONCLUSION: Key opinion leaders regarded ctDNA as a valuable adjunct selected melanoma scenarios. Validation through prospective studies, guideline development, and reimbursement frameworks are essential for broader clinical implementation.