TY - JOUR
T1 - Translating ctDNA into cutaneous melanoma care
T2 - An international expert survey
AU - Geidel, Glenn
AU - Fekade, Nathan
AU - Raabe, Katharina
AU - Smit, Daniel J
AU - Adam, Laura
AU - Heidrich, Isabel
AU - Rünger, Alessandra
AU - Kött, Julian
AU - Zell, Tim
AU - Amaral, Teresa
AU - Ascierto, Paolo A
AU - Corrie, Pippa
AU - Dummer, Reinhard
AU - Eggermont, Alexander
AU - Guo, Jun
AU - Hassel, Jessica C
AU - Jalving, Mathilde
AU - Johnson, Douglas B
AU - Kandolf, Lidija
AU - Kirkwood, John M
AU - Lebbé, Celeste
AU - Lee, Rebecca
AU - Long, Georgina V
AU - Lorigan, Paul
AU - Malvehy, Josep
AU - Mangana, Joanna
AU - Mohr, Peter
AU - Patel, Sapna P
AU - Rizos, Helen
AU - Robert, Caroline
AU - Schadendorf, Dirk
AU - Sondak, Vernon K
AU - Svane, Inge Marie
AU - Wainstein, Alberto
AU - Zager, Jonathan S
AU - Pantel, Klaus
AU - Hauschild, Axel
AU - Gebhardt, Christoffer
AU - Melanoma World Society Study Group
A2 - Guenova, Emmanuella
N1 - Copyright © 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2026/5/15
Y1 - 2026/5/15
N2 - BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker in melanoma, with higher sensitivity for tumor burden detection than conventional diagnostics. While well established in research, clinical routine implementation remains pending. Key global questions concern optimal clinical applications and barriers to adoption.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.
AB - BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker in melanoma, with higher sensitivity for tumor burden detection than conventional diagnostics. While well established in research, clinical routine implementation remains pending. Key global questions concern optimal clinical applications and barriers to adoption.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.
KW - Humans
KW - Melanoma/genetics
KW - Circulating Tumor DNA/blood
KW - Skin Neoplasms/genetics
KW - Biomarkers, Tumor/blood
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Male
KW - Female
KW - Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105035528096
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2026.116676
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2026.116676
M3 - Article
C2 - 41932032
SN - 1879-0852
VL - 239
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
M1 - 116676
ER -