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
AU - Aarts, Maureen J.B.
AU - Arance, Ana
AU - Asher, Nethanel
AU - Becker, Jürgen C.
AU - Bhatia, Shailender
AU - Blank, Christian U.
AU - Block, Matthew S.
AU - Boutros, Celine
AU - Burton, Elizabeth M.
AU - Butler, Marcus
AU - Carvajal, Richard D.
AU - Davar, Diwakar
AU - Dervenis, Vasileios
AU - Donia, Marco
AU - Eigentler, Thomas
AU - Fecher, Leslie A.
AU - Ferrucci, Pier Francesco
AU - Forschner, Andrea
AU - Gaide, Olivier
AU - Gaudy-Marqueste, Caroline
AU - Gavrilova, Iva
AU - Glitza Oliva, Isabella C.
AU - Goldinger, Simone M.
AU - Gouda, Mohamed A.
AU - Grabbe, Stephan
AU - Guenova, Emmanuella
AU - Gutzmer, Ralf
AU - Hafner, Christine
AU - Hamid, Omid
AU - Helgadottir, Hildur
AU - Heppt, Markus V.
AU - Hieken, Tina J.
AU - Hoeijmakers, Lotte L.
AU - HoellerHoeller, Christoph
AU - Hyngstrom, John
AU - Jacobs, Celine
AU - Jalovcic-Suljevic, Amina
AU - Jang, Sekwon
AU - Khattak, Muhammad Adnan
AU - Kee, Damien
AU - Kehrer, Helmut
AU - Koelblinger, Peter
AU - Larkin, James
AU - Lau, Peter
AU - Leiter, Ulrike
AU - Livingstone, Elisabeth
AU - Lipson, Evan J.
AU - Longo, Caterina
AU - Luke, Jason J.
AU - Ma, Vincent T.
AU - Mandalà, Mario
AU - Maul, Lara Valeska
AU - Mazilu, Laura
AU - Meier, Friedegund
AU - Mesti, Tanja
AU - Munoz-Couselo, Eva
AU - Nakamura, Yasuhiro
AU - Neyns, Bart
AU - Ocvirk, Janja
AU - Orlova, Kristina
AU - Da Silva, Ines Pires
AU - Popovic, Aleksandar
AU - Posch, Christian
AU - Postow, Michael A.
AU - Puzanov, Igor
AU - Ramelyte, Egle
AU - Richtig, Erika
AU - Roberts-Thomson, Rachel
AU - Rorive, Andrée
AU - Rutkowski, Piotr
AU - Rutten, Annemie
AU - Samoylenko, Igor
AU - Shalamanova, Gergana Krumova
AU - Shaw, Heather M.
AU - Shoushtari, Alexander N.
AU - Si, Lu
AU - Siano, Marco
AU - Tawbi, Hussein
AU - Tietze, Julia K.
AU - Sullivan, Ryan
AU - Terheyden, Patrick
AU - Ugurel, Selma
AU - Urbonas, Vincas
AU - Van Akkooi, Alexander C.J.
AU - Van der Veldt, Astrid A.M.
AU - Young, Kate
AU - Zimmer, Lisa
N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2026. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
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 - Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)
KW - Expert survey
KW - Liquid biopsy
KW - Melanoma
KW - Minimal residual disease (MRD)
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
AN - SCOPUS:105035528096
SN - 0959-8049
VL - 239
SP - 1
EP - 13
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
M1 - 116676
ER -