ArticleJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2025
In-depth assessment of BRAF, NRAS, KRAS, EGFR, and PIK3CA mutations on cell-free DNA in the blood of melanoma patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibition.
Article in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated longitudinal analysis of ctDNA, radiologic response, and tumor volume reveals spatial and temporal heterogeneity in advanced melanoma.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker for Melanoma Prognosis and Therapy.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Review
- Individualized Longitudinal ctDNA Monitoring in Melanoma Using Multiplexed USE-PCR.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical and Radiometabolic Correlatives of ddPCR Liquid Biopsy for BRAF V600 Mutated Melanoma.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- m6A RNA Methylation Promotes the Melanoma Metastasis Mediated by Extracellular VesicleCancers · 2026Article
- Review
- Circulating cellular communication network factor 1 (CCN1) as a liquid biopsy marker indicating progression in advanced melanoma.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Synthetic biology approaches to enhance cancer immune responses.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) holds promise for guiding immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy and stratifying responders from non-responders. While tumor-informed ctDNA detection approaches are sensitive and mutation-inclusive, they require tumor tissue, which limits applicability in real-world settings. Conversely, tumor-agnostic methods often have limited genomic coverage. In this study, we evaluated a tumor-agnostic, broad-panel ctDNA assay in patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICI.
methodsWe conducted a prospective analysis of 241 longitudinal samples from 39 patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma using a SYSMEX targeted NGS panel covering 1,114 COSMIC mutations. Plasma samples were collected at baseline and during ICI therapy. The assay's sensitivity reached seven mutant molecules, corresponding to a 0.07% mutation allele frequency (MAF). ctDNA profiles were compared with matched tumor tissue and correlated with clinical features and survival.
resultsAt baseline, ctDNA was detected in 64.5% of patients. Common mutations included BRAF
conclusionBroad tumor-agnostic ctDNA analysis effectively identified clinically relevant mutations and predicted outcomes in ICI-treated melanoma patients. This approach enables tissue-independent and real-time ctDNA monitoring and may inform patient selection and therapeutic strategies in future interventional trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.