Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) Clearance After Immune Checkpoint Inhibition (ICI) with Radiotherapy (RT) as a Prognostic Biomarker for Advanced Melanoma
Le résumé fourni par la source
ctDNA is evolving as an important biomarker for ICI treatment response assessment in advanced melanoma. However, the utility of ctDNA monitoring during concurrent ICI with RT remains incompletely explored. In this multicenter, retrospective study, patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma treated with ICI and palliative RT were identified. Patients had retrospectively collected, tumor-informed, exome-based, ctDNA monitoring within 3 months following RT. 50 patients treated with ICI and palliative RT were analyzed. Patients with ctDNA clearance had significantly longer OS (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.16-3.80, p=0.014) compared to those with increasing or decreasing and detectable ctDNA following RT. One-year OS was 85.9% with ctDNA clearance, 30.6% with decreasing ctDNA, and 22.0% for increasing ctDNA. In a multivariable analysis, both decreasing and increasing ctDNA were associated with worse OS compared with ctDNA clearance (HR 5.08 [95% CI, 1.26–20.48, p=0.022] and HR 9.83 [95% CI, 2.69–35.94, p< 0.001], respectively). Among patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICI and palliative RT, ctDNA clearance is associated with significantly improved OS compared to patients with detectable ctDNA within 3 months following RT. Ongoing studies are needed to understand the role of ctDNA in this population.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) Clearance After Immune Checkpoint Inhibition (ICI) with Radiotherapy (RT) as a Prognostic Biomarker for Advanced Melanoma
- Date Crossref
- 11/08/2026
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.