Literature DB >> 30446996

Measurement of tumor mutational burden (TMB) in routine molecular diagnostics: in silico and real-life analysis of three larger gene panels.

Volker Endris1, Ivo Buchhalter1,2, Michael Allgäuer1, Eugen Rempel1, Amelie Lier1, Anna-Lena Volckmar1, Martina Kirchner1, Moritz von Winterfeld1, Jonas Leichsenring1, Olaf Neumann1, Roland Penzel1, Wilko Weichert3,4, Hanno Glimm2,5, Stefan Fröhling2,6, Hauke Winter7,8, Felix Herth8,9, Michael Thomas8,10, Peter Schirmacher1,11, Jan Budczies1,11, Albrecht Stenzinger1,11.   

Abstract

Assessment of Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) for response stratification of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is emerging as a new biomarker. Commonly defined as the total number of exonic somatic mutations, TMB approximates the amount of neoantigens that potentially are recognized by the immune system. While whole exome sequencing (WES) is an unbiased approach to quantify TMB, implementation in diagnostics is hampered by tissue availability as well as time and cost constrains. Conversely, panel-based targeted sequencing is nowadays widely used in routine molecular diagnostics, but only very limited data are available on its performance for TMB estimation. Here, we evaluated three commercially available larger gene panels with covered genomic regions of 0.39 Megabase pairs (Mbp), 0.53 Mbp and 1.7 Mbp using i) in silico analysis of TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) data and ii) wet-lab sequencing of a total of 92 formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cancer samples grouped in three independent cohorts (non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC; colorectal cancer, CRC; and mixed cancer types) for which matching WES data were available. We observed a strong correlation of the panel data with WES mutation counts especially for the gene panel >1Mbp. Sensitivity and specificity related to TMB cutpoints for checkpoint inhibitor response in NSCLC determined by wet-lab experiments well reflected the in silico data. Additionally, we highlight potential pitfalls in bioinformatics pipelines and provide recommendations for variant filtering. In summary, our study is a valuable data source for researchers working in the field of immuno-oncology as well as for diagnostic laboratories planning TMB testing.
© 2018 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NGS; TMB; mutational load; panel sequencing; tumor mutational burden

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30446996     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  40 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in cancer.

Authors:  D E Meyers; S Banerji
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 2.  Tumor Mutational Burden as a Predictive Biomarker for Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Review of Current Evidence.

Authors:  Samuel J Klempner; David Fabrizio; Shalmali Bane; Marcia Reinhart; Tim Peoples; Siraj M Ali; Ethan S Sokol; Garrett Frampton; Alexa B Schrock; Rachel Anhorn; Prasanth Reddy
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-10-02

3.  [Importance of tumour mutation burden testing].

Authors:  Peter J Wild
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 4.  [Predictive diagnostics for checkpoint inhibitors].

Authors:  Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Wilko Weichert
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 1.011

5.  Pan-cancer analysis of tumor mutation burden sensitive tumors reveals tumor-specific subtypes and hub genes related to immune infiltration.

Authors:  Huan Wu; Hanchu Wang; Yue Chen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-07-02       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 6.  Driving innovation for rare skin cancers: utilizing common tumours and machine learning to predict immune checkpoint inhibitor response.

Authors:  J S Hooiveld-Noeken; R S N Fehrmann; E G E de Vries; M Jalving
Journal:  Immunooncol Technol       Date:  2019-11-27

7.  Tumor mutational and indel burden: a systematic pan-cancer evaluation as prognostic biomarkers.

Authors:  Hao-Xiang Wu; Zi-Xian Wang; Qi Zhao; Dong-Liang Chen; Ming-Ming He; Lu-Ping Yang; Ying-Nan Wang; Ying Jin; Chao Ren; Hui-Yan Luo; Zhi-Qiang Wang; Feng Wang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-11

8.  Genomic features of rapid versus late relapse in triple negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Yiqing Zhang; Sarah Asad; Zachary Weber; David Tallman; William Nock; Meghan Wyse; Jerome F Bey; Kristin L Dean; Elizabeth J Adams; Sinclair Stockard; Jasneet Singh; Eric P Winer; Nancy U Lin; Yi-Zhou Jiang; Ding Ma; Peng Wang; Leming Shi; Wei Huang; Zhi-Ming Shao; Mathew Cherian; Maryam B Lustberg; Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy; Sagar Sardesai; Jeffrey VanDeusen; Nicole Williams; Robert Wesolowski; Samilia Obeng-Gyasi; Gina M Sizemore; Steven T Sizemore; Claire Verschraegen; Daniel G Stover
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Challenges in bioinformatics approaches to tumor mutation burden analysis.

Authors:  Francesca Fenizia; Raffaella Pasquale; Riziero Esposito Abate; Matilde Lambiase; Cristin Roma; Francesca Bergantino; Ruchi Chaudhury; Fiona Hyland; Christopher Allen; Nicola Normanno
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.967

10.  [Research Progress on Heterogeneity of Tumor Mutation Burden in Patients with 
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].

Authors:  Abdurazik Mihray; Peng Chen
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2021-04-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.