Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8116156/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34035810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6660571 |
_version_ | 1783691333211258880 |
---|---|
author | Zheng, Yang Sun, Hongyan Cong, Lele Liu, Chenlu Sun, Qian Wu, Nan Cong, Xianling |
author_facet | Zheng, Yang Sun, Hongyan Cong, Lele Liu, Chenlu Sun, Qian Wu, Nan Cong, Xianling |
author_sort | Zheng, Yang |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 BRAF(V600) 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 BRAF(V600) 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 BRAF(V600) ctDNA mutation was significantly associated with worse prognosis in melanoma patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8116156 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81161562021-05-24 Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis Zheng, Yang Sun, Hongyan Cong, Lele Liu, Chenlu Sun, Qian Wu, Nan Cong, Xianling J Oncol Research Article 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 BRAF(V600) 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 BRAF(V600) 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 BRAF(V600) ctDNA mutation was significantly associated with worse prognosis in melanoma patients. Hindawi 2021-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8116156/ /pubmed/34035810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6660571 Text en Copyright © 2021 Yang Zheng et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Zheng, Yang Sun, Hongyan Cong, Lele Liu, Chenlu Sun, Qian Wu, Nan Cong, Xianling Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis |
title | Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | prognostic value of ctdna mutation in melanoma: a meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8116156/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34035810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6660571 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhengyang prognosticvalueofctdnamutationinmelanomaametaanalysis AT sunhongyan prognosticvalueofctdnamutationinmelanomaametaanalysis AT conglele prognosticvalueofctdnamutationinmelanomaametaanalysis AT liuchenlu prognosticvalueofctdnamutationinmelanomaametaanalysis AT sunqian prognosticvalueofctdnamutationinmelanomaametaanalysis AT wunan prognosticvalueofctdnamutationinmelanomaametaanalysis AT congxianling prognosticvalueofctdnamutationinmelanomaametaanalysis |