Geidel G, Fekade N, Raabe K, Smit DJ, Adam L, Heidrich I, Rünger A, Kött J, Zell T, Amaral T, Ascierto PA, Corrie P, Dummer R, Eggermont A, Guo J, Hassel JC, Jalving M, Johnson DB, Kandolf L, Kirkwood JM, Lebbé C, Lee R, Long GV, Lorigan P, Malvehy J, Mangana J, Mohr P, Patel SP, Rizos H, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Sondak VK, Svane IM, Wainstein A, Zager JS, Pantel K, Hauschild A, Gebhardt C, Aarts MJ, Arance A, Asher N, Becker JC, Bhatia S, Blank CU, Block MS, Boutros C, Burton EM, Butler M, Carvajal RD, Davar D, Dervenis V, Donia M, Eigentler T, Fecher LA, Ferrucci PF, Forschner A, Gaide O, Gaudy-Marqueste C, Gavrilova I, Glitza Oliva IC, Goldinger SM, Gouda MA, Grabbe S, Guenova E, Gutzmer R, Hafner C, Hamid O, Helgadottir H, Heppt M, Hieken TJ, Hoeijmakers LL, HoellerHoeller C, Hyngstrom J, Jacobs C, Jalovcic-Suljevic A, Jang S, Khattak MA, Kee D, Kehrer H, Koelblinger P, Larkin J, Lau P, Leiter U, Livingstone E, Lipson EJ, Longo C, Luke JJ, Ma VT, Mandalà M, Maul LV, Mazilu L, Meier F, Mesti T, Munoz-Couselo E, Nakamura Y, Neyns B, Ocvirk J, Orlova K, Da Silva IP, Popovic A, Posch C, Postow MA, Puzanov I, Ramelyte E, Richtig E, Roberts-Thomson R, Rorive A, Rutkowski P, Rutten A, Samoylenko I, Shalamanova GK, Shaw HM, Shoushtari AN, Si L, Siano M, Tawbi H, Tietze JK, Sullivan R, Terheyden P, Ugurel S, Urbonas V, Van Akkooi AC, Van der Veldt AA, Young K, Zimmer L (2026)
Publication Type: Journal article
Publication year: 2026
Book Volume: 239
Article Number: 116676
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2026.116676
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.
APA:
Geidel, G., Fekade, N., Raabe, K., Smit, D.J., Adam, L., Heidrich, I.,... Zimmer, L. (2026). Translating ctDNA into cutaneous melanoma care: An international expert survey. European Journal of Cancer, 239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2026.116676
MLA:
Geidel, Glenn, et al. "Translating ctDNA into cutaneous melanoma care: An international expert survey." European Journal of Cancer 239 (2026).
BibTeX: Download