David A Fabrizio1, Thomas J George2, Richard F Dunne3, Garrett Frampton1, James Sun1, Kyle Gowen1, Mark Kennedy1, Joel Greenbowe1, Alexa B Schrock1, Aram F Hezel3, Jeffrey S Ross1,4, Phillip J Stephens1, Siraj M Ali1, Vincent A Miller1, Marwan Fakih5, Samuel J Klempner6,7. 1. Foundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, USA. 2. Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainseville, USA. 3. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA. 5. Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA USA. 6. The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, USA. 7. Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical application of PD1/PD-L1 targeting checkpoint inhibitors in colorectal cancer (CRC) has largely focused on a subset of microsatellite instable (MSI-high) patients. However, the proposed genotype that sensitizes these patients to immunotherapy is not captured by MSI status alone. Estimation of tumor mutational burden (TMB) from comprehensive genomic profiling is validated against whole exome sequencing and linked to checkpoint response in metastatic melanoma, urothelial bladder cancer and non-small cell lung carcinoma. We sought to explore the subset of microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC patients with high TMB, and identify the specific genomic signatures associated with this phenotype. Furthermore, we explore the ability to quantify TMB as a potential predictive biomarker of PD1/PD-L1 therapy in CRC. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue sections from 6,004 cases of CRC were sequenced with a CLIA-approved CGP assay. MSI and TMB statuses were computationally determined using validated methods. The cutoff for TMB-high was defined according to the lower bound value that satisfied the 90% probability interval based on the TMB distribution across all MSI-High patients. RESULTS: MSS tumors were observed in 5,702 of 6,004 (95.0%) cases and MSI-H tumors were observed in 302 (5.0%) cases. All but one (99.7%) MSI-H cases were TMB-high (range, 6.3-746.9 mut/Mb) and 5,538 of 5,702 (97.0%) MSS cases were TMB-low (range, 0.0-10.8 mut/Mb). Consequently, 164 of 5,702 (2.9%) MSS cases were confirmed as TMB-high (range, 11.7-707.2 mut/Mb), representing an increase in the target population that may respond to checkpoint inhibitor therapy by 54% (466 vs. 302, respectively). Response to PD-1 inhibitor is demonstrated in MSS/TMB-high cases. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent TMB assessment accurately classifies MSI tumors as TMB-high and simultaneously identifies nearly 3% or CRC as MSS/TMB-high. This subgroup may expand the population of CRC who may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor based therapeutic approaches.
BACKGROUND: The clinical application of PD1/PD-L1 targeting checkpoint inhibitors in colorectal cancer (CRC) has largely focused on a subset of microsatellite instable (MSI-high) patients. However, the proposed genotype that sensitizes these patients to immunotherapy is not captured by MSI status alone. Estimation of tumor mutational burden (TMB) from comprehensive genomic profiling is validated against whole exome sequencing and linked to checkpoint response in metastatic melanoma, urothelial bladder cancer and non-small cell lung carcinoma. We sought to explore the subset of microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC patients with high TMB, and identify the specific genomic signatures associated with this phenotype. Furthermore, we explore the ability to quantify TMB as a potential predictive biomarker of PD1/PD-L1 therapy in CRC. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue sections from 6,004 cases of CRC were sequenced with a CLIA-approved CGP assay. MSI and TMB statuses were computationally determined using validated methods. The cutoff for TMB-high was defined according to the lower bound value that satisfied the 90% probability interval based on the TMB distribution across all MSI-High patients. RESULTS: MSS tumors were observed in 5,702 of 6,004 (95.0%) cases and MSI-H tumors were observed in 302 (5.0%) cases. All but one (99.7%) MSI-H cases were TMB-high (range, 6.3-746.9 mut/Mb) and 5,538 of 5,702 (97.0%) MSS cases were TMB-low (range, 0.0-10.8 mut/Mb). Consequently, 164 of 5,702 (2.9%) MSS cases were confirmed as TMB-high (range, 11.7-707.2 mut/Mb), representing an increase in the target population that may respond to checkpoint inhibitor therapy by 54% (466 vs. 302, respectively). Response to PD-1 inhibitor is demonstrated in MSS/TMB-high cases. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent TMB assessment accurately classifies MSI tumors as TMB-high and simultaneously identifies nearly 3% or CRC as MSS/TMB-high. This subgroup may expand the population of CRC who may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor based therapeutic approaches.
Authors: Robert J Mayer; Eric Van Cutsem; Alfredo Falcone; Takayuki Yoshino; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Nobuyuki Mizunuma; Kentaro Yamazaki; Yasuhiro Shimada; Josep Tabernero; Yoshito Komatsu; Alberto Sobrero; Eveline Boucher; Marc Peeters; Ben Tran; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Alberto Zaniboni; Howard Hochster; James M Cleary; Hans Prenen; Fabio Benedetti; Hirokazu Mizuguchi; Lukas Makris; Masanobu Ito; Atsushi Ohtsu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alessandro D Santin; Stefania Bellone; Natalia Buza; Jungmin Choi; Peter E Schwartz; Joseph Schlessinger; Richard P Lifton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Naiyer A Rizvi; Matthew D Hellmann; Alexandra Snyder; Pia Kvistborg; Vladimir Makarov; Jonathan J Havel; William Lee; Jianda Yuan; Phillip Wong; Teresa S Ho; Martin L Miller; Natasha Rekhtman; Andre L Moreira; Fawzia Ibrahim; Cameron Bruggeman; Billel Gasmi; Roberta Zappasodi; Yuka Maeda; Chris Sander; Edward B Garon; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Ton N Schumacher; Timothy A Chan Journal: Science Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Axel Grothey; Eric Van Cutsem; Alberto Sobrero; Salvatore Siena; Alfredo Falcone; Marc Ychou; Yves Humblet; Olivier Bouché; Laurent Mineur; Carlo Barone; Antoine Adenis; Josep Tabernero; Takayuki Yoshino; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Frank Cihon; Lisa Cupit; Andrea Wagner; Dirk Laurent Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Zachary R Chalmers; Caitlin F Connelly; David Fabrizio; Laurie Gay; Siraj M Ali; Riley Ennis; Alexa Schrock; Brittany Campbell; Adam Shlien; Juliann Chmielecki; Franklin Huang; Yuting He; James Sun; Uri Tabori; Mark Kennedy; Daniel S Lieber; Steven Roels; Jared White; Geoffrey A Otto; Jeffrey S Ross; Levi Garraway; Vincent A Miller; Phillip J Stephens; Garrett M Frampton Journal: Genome Med Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Lorenzo F Fanchi; Krijn K Dijkstra; José G Van den Berg; Emile E Voest; John B Haanen; Myriam Chalabi; Arend G Aalbers; Karolina Sikorska; Marta Lopez-Yurda; Cecile Grootscholten; Geerard L Beets; Petur Snaebjornsson; Monique Maas; Marjolijn Mertz; Vivien Veninga; Gergana Bounova; Annegien Broeks; Regina G Beets-Tan; Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Anja U van Lent; Hendrik A Marsman; Elvira Nuijten; Niels F Kok; Maria Kuiper; Wieke H Verbeek; Marleen Kok; Monique E Van Leerdam; Ton N Schumacher Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 53.440