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

Abstract Introduction Circulating 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 applic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Isabel Heidrich, Charlotte Rautmann, Cedric Ly, Robin Khatri, Julian Kött, Glenn Geidel, Alessandra Rünger, Antje Andreas, Inga Hansen-Abeck, Finn Abeck, Anne Menz, Stefan Bonn, Stefan W. Schneider, Daniel J. Smit, Christoffer Gebhardt, Klaus Pantel
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-07-01
Series:Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-025-03457-w
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849760946112692224
author Isabel Heidrich
Charlotte Rautmann
Cedric Ly
Robin Khatri
Julian Kött
Glenn Geidel
Alessandra Rünger
Antje Andreas
Inga Hansen-Abeck
Finn Abeck
Anne Menz
Stefan Bonn
Stefan W. Schneider
Daniel J. Smit
Christoffer Gebhardt
Klaus Pantel
author_facet Isabel Heidrich
Charlotte Rautmann
Cedric Ly
Robin Khatri
Julian Kött
Glenn Geidel
Alessandra Rünger
Antje Andreas
Inga Hansen-Abeck
Finn Abeck
Anne Menz
Stefan Bonn
Stefan W. Schneider
Daniel J. Smit
Christoffer Gebhardt
Klaus Pantel
author_sort Isabel Heidrich
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Introduction Circulating 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. Methods We 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. Results At baseline, ctDNA was detected in 64.5% of patients. Common mutations included BRAF V600E (43.8%) and NRAS G12D (36.4%), followed by KRAS, EGFR, and PIK3CA variants. Overall tissue–plasma concordance was 51.6%, with more extended biopsy–plasma intervals associated with discordance (p = 0.0105). Notably, 12.2% of cases exhibited partial concordance, characterized by shared mutations and additional plasma-only alterations, underscoring the complementary value of blood-based profiling. Persistent or re-emerging ctDNA positivity post-therapy correlated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS, p = 0.003), while ctDNA-negative patients showed significantly improved outcomes. Patients that remained ctDNA-negative had significantly longer progression-free survival (median not reached) compared to those with persistent ctDNA positivity (median 3 months) or those converting to positive (median 7.5 months; p = 0.0073). Early NRAS and KRAS ctDNA levels strongly predicted poor response (p = 0.0069 and p = 0.028). The prognostic impact extended beyond canonical drivers, as non-hotspot variants also correlated with the outcome. Notably, even low-level ctDNA persistence (5–10 MM/mL) carried adverse prognostic implications (p = 0.0054). Concerning a shorter PFS, ctDNA positivity was also associated with elevated S100 levels (p = 0.047). Organ-specific mutation enrichment (e.g., KRASG12D in brain, EGFRG719A in lymph nodes) suggested possible metastatic tropism. Conclusion Broad 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-fe3fded8f0ed41acac2bd584276a9c59
institution DOAJ
issn 1756-9966
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
spelling doaj-art-fe3fded8f0ed41acac2bd584276a9c592025-08-20T03:06:10ZengBMCJournal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research1756-99662025-07-0144111810.1186/s13046-025-03457-wIn-depth assessment of BRAF, NRAS, KRAS, EGFR, and PIK3CA mutations on cell-free DNA in the blood of melanoma patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitionIsabel Heidrich0Charlotte Rautmann1Cedric Ly2Robin Khatri3Julian Kött4Glenn Geidel5Alessandra Rünger6Antje Andreas7Inga Hansen-Abeck8Finn Abeck9Anne Menz10Stefan Bonn11Stefan W. Schneider12Daniel J. Smit13Christoffer Gebhardt14Klaus Pantel15Institute of Tumor Biology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute of Tumor Biology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute of Systems Immunology, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute for Medical Systems Bioinformatics, Center for Molecular Neurobiology (ZMBH), University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute of Tumor Biology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute of Pathology, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute for Medical Systems Bioinformatics, Center for Molecular Neurobiology (ZMBH), University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute of Tumor Biology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfInstitute of Tumor Biology, Fleur Hiege Center for Skin Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfAbstract Introduction Circulating 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. Methods We 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. Results At baseline, ctDNA was detected in 64.5% of patients. Common mutations included BRAF V600E (43.8%) and NRAS G12D (36.4%), followed by KRAS, EGFR, and PIK3CA variants. Overall tissue–plasma concordance was 51.6%, with more extended biopsy–plasma intervals associated with discordance (p = 0.0105). Notably, 12.2% of cases exhibited partial concordance, characterized by shared mutations and additional plasma-only alterations, underscoring the complementary value of blood-based profiling. Persistent or re-emerging ctDNA positivity post-therapy correlated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS, p = 0.003), while ctDNA-negative patients showed significantly improved outcomes. Patients that remained ctDNA-negative had significantly longer progression-free survival (median not reached) compared to those with persistent ctDNA positivity (median 3 months) or those converting to positive (median 7.5 months; p = 0.0073). Early NRAS and KRAS ctDNA levels strongly predicted poor response (p = 0.0069 and p = 0.028). The prognostic impact extended beyond canonical drivers, as non-hotspot variants also correlated with the outcome. Notably, even low-level ctDNA persistence (5–10 MM/mL) carried adverse prognostic implications (p = 0.0054). Concerning a shorter PFS, ctDNA positivity was also associated with elevated S100 levels (p = 0.047). Organ-specific mutation enrichment (e.g., KRASG12D in brain, EGFRG719A in lymph nodes) suggested possible metastatic tropism. Conclusion Broad 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.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-025-03457-wCtDNALiquid BiopsyMelanomaBRAFNRASKRAS
spellingShingle Isabel Heidrich
Charlotte Rautmann
Cedric Ly
Robin Khatri
Julian Kött
Glenn Geidel
Alessandra Rünger
Antje Andreas
Inga Hansen-Abeck
Finn Abeck
Anne Menz
Stefan Bonn
Stefan W. Schneider
Daniel J. Smit
Christoffer Gebhardt
Klaus Pantel
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
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
CtDNA
Liquid Biopsy
Melanoma
BRAF
NRAS
KRAS
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic CtDNA
Liquid Biopsy
Melanoma
BRAF
NRAS
KRAS
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-025-03457-w
work_keys_str_mv AT isabelheidrich indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT charlotterautmann indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT cedricly indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT robinkhatri indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT juliankott indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT glenngeidel indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT alessandrarunger indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT antjeandreas indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT ingahansenabeck indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT finnabeck indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT annemenz indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT stefanbonn indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT stefanwschneider indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT danieljsmit indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT christoffergebhardt indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition
AT klauspantel indepthassessmentofbrafnraskrasegfrandpik3camutationsoncellfreednainthebloodofmelanomapatientsreceivingimmunecheckpointinhibition