Circulating tumour DNA in patients with advanced melanoma treated with dabrafenib or dabrafenib plus trametinib: a clinical validation study
Open accessAbstract
Background Melanoma lacks validated blood-based biomarkers for monitoring and predicting treatment efficacy. Cell-free circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker; however, various detection methods have been used, and, to date, no large studies have examined the association between serial changes in ctDNA and survival after BRAF, MEK, or BRAF plus MEK inhibitor therapy. We aimed to evaluate whether baseline ctDNA concentrations and kinetics could predict survival outcomes.Methods In this clinical validation study, we used analytically validated droplet digital PCR assays to measure BRAF V600-mutant ctDNA in pretreatment and on-treatment plasma samples from patients aged 18 years or older enrolled in two clinical trials. COMBI-d (NCT01584648) was a double-blind, randomised phase 3 study of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib plus placebo in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. COMBI-MB (NCT02039947) was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma and brain metastases. Patients in cohort A of COMBI-MB had asymptomatic brain metastases, no previous local brain-directed therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Biomarker analysis was a prespecified exploratory endpoint in both trials and performed in the intention-to-treat populations in COMBI-d and COMBI-MB. We investigated the association between mutant copy number (baseline or week 4 or zero conversion status) and efficacy endpoints (progression-free survival, overall survival, and best overall response). We used Cox models, Kaplan-Meier plots, and log-rank tests to explore the association of pretreatment ctDNA concentrations with progression-free survival and overall survival. The effect of additional prognostic variables such as lactate dehydrogenase was also investigated in addition to the mutant copy number.Findings In COMBI-d, pretreatment plasma samples were available from 345 (82%) of 423 patients and on-treatment (week 4) plasma samples were available from 224 (53%) of 423 patients. In cohort A of COMBI-MB, pretreatment and on-treatment samples were available from 38 (50%) of 76 patients with intracranial and extracranial metastatic melanoma. ctDNA was detected in pretreatment samples from 320 (93%) of 345 patients (COMBI-d) and 34 (89%) of 38 patients (COMBI-MB). When assessed as a continuous variable, elevated baseline BRAF V600 mutation-positive ctDNA concentration was associated with worse overall survival outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·09-1·18], p<0·0001 by univariate analysis), independent of treatment group and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentrations (1·08 [1·03-1·13], p=0·0020), in COMBI-d. A ctDNA cutoff point of 64 copies per mL of plasma stratified patients enrolled in COMBI-d as high risk or low risk with respect to survival outcomes (HR 1·74 [95% CI 1·37-2·21], p<0·0001 for progression-free survival; 2·23 [1·73-2·87], p<0·0001 for overall survival) and was validated in the COMBI-MB cohort (3·20 [1·39-7·34], p=0·0047 for progression-free survival; 2·94 [1·18-7·32], p=0·016 for overall survival). In COMBI-d, undetectable ctDNA at week 4 was significantly associated with extended progression-free and overall survival, particularly in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase concentrations (HR 1·99 [95% CI 1·08-3·64], p=0·027 for progression-free survival; 2·38 [1·24-4·54], p=0·0089 for overall survival).Interpretation Pretreatment and on-treatment BRAF V600-mutant ctDNA measurements could serve as independent, predictive biomarkers of clinical outcome with targeted therapy.Funding Novartis.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Clearance of ctDNA of the targeted oncogene has been proposed as a potential pharmacodynamic marker, predictive of response to the matched therapy and of OS.
“Clearance of ctDNA of the targeted oncogene has been proposed as a potential pharmacodynamic marker, predictive of response to the matched therapy and of OS (13, 14).”
From Efficacy and Safety of Adagrasib plus Cetuximab in Patients with <i>KRAS</i> G12C-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 101
- Authors
- Syeda, M. M., Wiggins, J. M., Corless, B. C., Long, G. V., Flaherty, K. T., Schadendorf, D., Nathan, P. D., Robert, C., Ribas, A., Davies, M. A., Grob, J. J., Gasal, E., Squires, M., Marker, M., Garrett, J., Brase, J. C., & Polsky, D.
- Affiliations
- NYU Langone Health (US)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Harvard University (US)
- Essen University Hospital (DE)
- Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
- Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Polsky, David
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-03
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 370-380
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8034833
- OpenAlex
- W3131642700
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 15
- FWCI
- 5.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Novartis
- National Institutes of Health
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
- Novartis Pharma
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Keywords
- circulating tumor DNA, BRAF V600 mutation, metastatic melanoma, dabrafenib, trametinib, liquid biopsy, prognostic factors, progression-free survival, overall survival, droplet digital PCR, brain metastases, lactate dehydrogenase, treatment response monitoring
- MeSH terms
- Circulating Tumor DNA, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Brain Neoplasms, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Imidazoles, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Oximes, Prognosis, Pyridones, Pyrimidinones, Survival Rate
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review