BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is an increasingly important biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors. Recent publications have described strong association between high TMB and objective response to mono- and combination immunotherapies in several cancer types. Existing methods to estimate TMB require large amount of input DNA, which may not always be available. METHODS: In this study, we develop a method to estimate TMB using the Oncomine Tumor Mutation Load (TML) Assay with 20 ng of DNA, and we characterize the performance of this method on various formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) research samples of several cancer types. We measure the analytical performance of TML workflow through comparison with control samples with known truth, and we compare performance with an orthogonal method which uses matched normal sample to remove germline variants. We perform whole exome sequencing (WES) on a batch of FFPE samples and compare the WES TMB values with TMB estimates by the TML assay. RESULTS: In-silico analyses demonstrated the Oncomine TML panel has sufficient genomic coverage to estimate somatic mutations with a strong correlation (r2=0.986) to WES. Further, in silico prediction using WES data from three separate cohorts and comparing with a subset of the WES overlapping with the TML panel, confirmed the ability to stratify responders and non-responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors with high statistical significance. We found the rate of somatic mutations with the TML assay on cell lines and control samples were similar to the known truth. We verified the performance of germline filtering using only a tumor sample in comparison to a matched tumor-normal experimental design to remove germline variants. We compared TMB estimates by the TML assay with that from WES on a batch of FFPE research samples and found high correlation (r2=0.83). We found biologically interesting tumorigenesis signatures on FFPE research samples of colorectal cancer (CRC), lung, and melanoma origin. Further, we assessed TMB on a cohort of FFPE research samples including lung, colon, and melanoma tumors to discover the biologically relevant range of TMB values. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the TML assay targeting a 1.7-Mb genomic footprint can accurately predict TMB values that are comparable to the WES. The TML assay workflow incorporates a simple workflow using the Ion GeneStudio S5 System. Further, the AmpliSeq chemistry allows the use of low input DNA to estimate mutational burden from FFPE samples. This TMB assay enables scalable, robust research into immuno-oncology biomarkers with scarce samples.
BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is an increasingly important biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors. Recent publications have described strong association between high TMB and objective response to mono- and combination immunotherapies in several cancer types. Existing methods to estimate TMB require large amount of input DNA, which may not always be available. METHODS: In this study, we develop a method to estimate TMB using the Oncomine Tumor Mutation Load (TML) Assay with 20 ng of DNA, and we characterize the performance of this method on various formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) research samples of several cancer types. We measure the analytical performance of TML workflow through comparison with control samples with known truth, and we compare performance with an orthogonal method which uses matched normal sample to remove germline variants. We perform whole exome sequencing (WES) on a batch of FFPE samples and compare the WES TMB values with TMB estimates by the TML assay. RESULTS: In-silico analyses demonstrated the Oncomine TML panel has sufficient genomic coverage to estimate somatic mutations with a strong correlation (r2=0.986) to WES. Further, in silico prediction using WES data from three separate cohorts and comparing with a subset of the WES overlapping with the TML panel, confirmed the ability to stratify responders and non-responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors with high statistical significance. We found the rate of somatic mutations with the TML assay on cell lines and control samples were similar to the known truth. We verified the performance of germline filtering using only a tumor sample in comparison to a matched tumor-normal experimental design to remove germline variants. We compared TMB estimates by the TML assay with that from WES on a batch of FFPE research samples and found high correlation (r2=0.83). We found biologically interesting tumorigenesis signatures on FFPE research samples of colorectal cancer (CRC), lung, and melanoma origin. Further, we assessed TMB on a cohort of FFPE research samples including lung, colon, and melanoma tumors to discover the biologically relevant range of TMB values. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the TML assay targeting a 1.7-Mb genomic footprint can accurately predict TMB values that are comparable to the WES. The TML assay workflow incorporates a simple workflow using the Ion GeneStudio S5 System. Further, the AmpliSeq chemistry allows the use of low input DNA to estimate mutational burden from FFPE samples. This TMB assay enables scalable, robust research into immuno-oncology biomarkers with scarce samples.
Authors: Dung T Le; Jennifer N Durham; Kellie N Smith; Hao Wang; Bjarne R Bartlett; Laveet K Aulakh; Steve Lu; Holly Kemberling; Cara Wilt; Brandon S Luber; Fay Wong; Nilofer S Azad; Agnieszka A Rucki; Dan Laheru; Ross Donehower; Atif Zaheer; George A Fisher; Todd S Crocenzi; James J Lee; Tim F Greten; Austin G Duffy; Kristen K Ciombor; Aleksandra D Eyring; Bao H Lam; Andrew Joe; S Peter Kang; Matthias Holdhoff; Ludmila Danilova; Leslie Cope; Christian Meyer; Shibin Zhou; Richard M Goldberg; Deborah K Armstrong; Katherine M Bever; Amanda N Fader; Janis Taube; Franck Housseau; David Spetzler; Nianqing Xiao; Drew M Pardoll; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; James R Eshleman; Bert Vogelstein; Robert A Anders; Luis A Diaz Journal: Science Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Julie R Brahmer; Charles G Drake; Ira Wollner; John D Powderly; Joel Picus; William H Sharfman; Elizabeth Stankevich; Alice Pons; Theresa M Salay; Tracee L McMiller; Marta M Gilson; Changyu Wang; Mark Selby; Janis M Taube; Robert Anders; Lieping Chen; Alan J Korman; Drew M Pardoll; Israel Lowy; Suzanne L Topalian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Suzanne L Topalian; F Stephen Hodi; Julie R Brahmer; Scott N Gettinger; David C Smith; David F McDermott; John D Powderly; Richard D Carvajal; Jeffrey A Sosman; Michael B Atkins; Philip D Leming; David R Spigel; Scott J Antonia; Leora Horn; Charles G Drake; Drew M Pardoll; Lieping Chen; William H Sharfman; Robert A Anders; Janis M Taube; Tracee L McMiller; Haiying Xu; Alan J Korman; Maria Jure-Kunkel; Shruti Agrawal; Daniel McDonald; Georgia D Kollia; Ashok Gupta; Jon M Wigginton; Mario Sznol Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-06-02 Impact factor: 91.245
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: M Chatterjee; D C Turner; E Felip; H Lena; F Cappuzzo; L Horn; E B Garon; R Hui; H-T Arkenau; M A Gubens; M D Hellmann; D Dong; C Li; K Mayawala; T Freshwater; M Ahamadi; J Stone; G M Lubiniecki; J Zhang; E Im; D P De Alwis; A G Kondic; Ø Fløtten Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Diana M Merino; Lisa M McShane; David Fabrizio; Vincent Funari; Shu-Jen Chen; James R White; Paul Wenz; Jonathan Baden; J Carl Barrett; Ruchi Chaudhary; Li Chen; Wangjuh Sting Chen; Jen-Hao Cheng; Dinesh Cyanam; Jennifer S Dickey; Vikas Gupta; Matthew Hellmann; Elena Helman; Yali Li; Joerg Maas; Arnaud Papin; Rajesh Patidar; Katie J Quinn; Naiyer Rizvi; Hongseok Tae; Christine Ward; Mingchao Xie; Ahmet Zehir; Chen Zhao; Manfred Dietel; Albrecht Stenzinger; Mark Stewart; Jeff Allen Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Daan P Hurkmans; Merian E Kuipers; Jasper Smit; Ronald van Marion; Ron H J Mathijssen; Piet E Postmus; Pieter S Hiemstra; Joachim G J V Aerts; Jan H von der Thüsen; Sjoerd H van der Burg Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 6.968