Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose. Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a diagnostic and prognostic marker of melanoma. However, whether ctDNA mutations can independently predict survival remains controversial. This meta-analysis assessed the prognostic value of the presence o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yang Zheng, Hongyan Sun, Lele Cong, Chenlu Liu, Qian Sun, Nan Wu, Xianling Cong
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2021-01-01
Series:Journal of Oncology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6660571
Description
Summary:Purpose. Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a diagnostic and prognostic marker of melanoma. However, whether ctDNA mutations can independently predict survival remains controversial. This meta-analysis assessed the prognostic value of the presence or change in ctDNA mutations in melanoma patients. Methods. We identified studies from the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. We estimated the combined hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using either fixed-effect or random-effect models based on heterogeneity. Results. Sixteen studies including 1,781 patients were included. Both baseline and posttreatment detectable ctDNA were associated with poor OS (baseline detectable vs. undetectable, pooled HR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.64–2.36, P<0.00001; baseline undetectable vs. detectable, pooled HR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.11–0.36, P<0.00001; posttreatment detectable vs. undetectable, pooled HR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.30–4.28, P=0.005). For PFS, baseline detectable ctDNA may be associated with adverse PFS (baseline detectable vs. undetectable, pooled HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.84–2.37, P=0.19; baseline undetectable vs. detectable, pooled HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.19–0.95, P=0.04) and baseline high ctDNA and increased ctDNA were significantly associated with adverse PFS (baseline high vs. low/undetectable, pooled HR = 3.29, 95% CI = 1.73–6.25, P=0.0003; increase vs. decrease, pooled HR = 4.48, 95% CI = 2.45–8.17, P<0.00001). The baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation-positive group was significantly associated with adverse OS compared with the baseline ctDNA-negative group (pooled HR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.58–2.29, P<0.00001). There were no significant differences in PFS between the baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation-detectable group and the undetectable group (pooled HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.72–1.44, P=0.92). Conclusion. The presence or elevation of ctDNA mutation or BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation was significantly associated with worse prognosis in melanoma patients.
ISSN:1687-8469