Repeat tumor biopsies to study genomic changes during therapy are difficult, invasive and data are confounded by tumoral heterogeneity.,The analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide a non-invasive approach to assess prognosis and the genetic evolution of tumors in response to therapy.,Mutation-specific droplet digital PCR was used to measure plasma concentrations of oncogenic BRAF and NRAS variants in 48 patients with advanced metastatic melanoma prior to treatment with targeted therapies (vemurafenib, dabrafenib or dabrafenib/trametinib combination) or immunotherapies (ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab).,Baseline ctDNA levels were evaluated relative to treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS).,Tumor-associated ctDNA was detected in the plasma of 35/48 (73%) patients prior to treatment and lower ctDNA levels at this time point were significantly associated with response to treatment and prolonged PFS, irrespective of therapy type.,Levels of ctDNA decreased significantly in patients treated with MAPK inhibitors (p < 0.001) in accordance with response to therapy, but this was not apparent in patients receiving immunotherapies.,We show that circulating NRAS mutations, known to confer resistance to BRAF inhibitors, were detected in 3 of 7 (43%) patients progressing on kinase inhibitor therapy.,Significantly, ctDNA rebound and circulating mutant NRAS preceded radiological detection of progressive disease.,Our data demonstrate that ctDNA is a useful biomarker of response to kinase inhibitor therapy and can be used to monitor tumor evolution and detect the early appearance of resistance effectors.
The approval of vemurafenib in the US 2011 and in Europe 2012 improved the therapy of not resectable or metastatic melanoma.,Patients carrying a substitution of valine to glutamic acid at codon 600 (p.V600E) or a substitution of valine to leucine (p.V600K) in BRAF show complete or partial response.,Therefore, the precise identification of the underlying somatic mutations is essential.,Herein, we evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and feasibility of six different methods for the detection of BRAF mutations.,Samples harboring p.V600E mutations as well as rare mutations in BRAF exon 15 were compared to wildtype samples.,DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues by manual micro-dissection and automated extraction.,BRAF mutational analysis was carried out by high resolution melting (HRM) analysis, pyrosequencing, allele specific PCR, next generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry (IHC).,All mutations were independently reassessed by Sanger sequencing.,Due to the limited tumor tissue available different numbers of samples were analyzed with each method (82, 72, 60, 72, 49 and 82 respectively).,There was no difference in sensitivity between the HRM analysis and Sanger sequencing (98%).,All mutations down to 6.6% allele frequency could be detected with 100% specificity.,In contrast, pyrosequencing detected 100% of the mutations down to 5% allele frequency but exhibited only 90% specificity.,The allele specific PCR failed to detect 16.3% of the mutations eligible for therapy with vemurafenib.,NGS could analyze 100% of the cases with 100% specificity but exhibited 97.5% sensitivity.,IHC showed once cross-reactivity with p.V600R but was a good amendment to HRM.,Therefore, at present, a combination of HRM and IHC is recommended to increase sensitivity and specificity for routine diagnostic to fulfill the European requirements concerning vemurafenib therapy of melanoma patients.