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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zheng, Yang, Sun, Hongyan, Cong, Lele, Liu, Chenlu, Sun, Qian, Wu, Nan, Cong, Xianling
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