Literature DB >> 30944026

The correlations of tumor mutational burden among single-region tissue, multi-region tissues and blood in non-small cell lung cancer.

Yaxiong Zhang1, Lianpeng Chang2, Yunpeng Yang1, Wenfeng Fang1, Yanfang Guan2, Aiwei Wu2, Shaodong Hong1, Huaqiang Zhou1, Gang Chen1, Xi Chen1, Shen Zhao1, Qiufan Zheng1, Hui Pan1, Lanjun Zhang3, Hao Long3, Haoxian Yang3, Xin Wang3, Zhesheng Wen3, Junye Wang3, Hong Yang3, Xuefeng Xia2, Yuanyuan Zhao1, Xue Hou1, Yuxiang Ma4, Ting Zhou1, Zhonghan Zhang1, Jianhua Zhan1, Yan Huang1, Hongyun Zhao4, Ningning Zhou1, Xin Yi2, Li Zhang5.   

Abstract

High-level tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) or blood TMB (bTMB) are associated with better response of immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, the correlations of single-region tTMB, multi-region tTMB and bTMB remain to be determined. Moreover, whether intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) has impact on TMB should be clarified. We collected multi-region tumor tissues with matched blood from 32 operative NSCLC and evaluated single-region tTMB, multi-region tTMB and bTMB through a 1021-gene panel sequencing. TMB of > 9 mutations/Mb was classified as high. Besides, we used tTMB fold-change to evaluate the influence of the enrolled region number on tTMB. We found both of single-region tTMB and bTMB showed strong correlations with multi-region tTMB, while the former correlated better (Pearson r = 0.94, P = 2E-84; Pearson r = 0.47, P = 0.0067). It showed extremely high specificity (100%) but low sensitivity (43%) when using bTMB to define TMB-high patients, while most false-negative predictions were in early-stage patients. Compared to single region, we found significantly enhanced tTMB fold-change if taking multi-regions for consideration. However, it showed insignificant tTMB fold-change increase if the included regions' number more than three. Moreover, ITH-high patients had significantly higher tTMB fold-change compared with ITH-low patients (2.32 vs. 1.02, P = 8.879e-05). The conversion rate of tTMB level (tTMB-low to tTMB-high) was numerically higher in ITH-high group than that in ITH-low group (16.67% vs. 3.84%). In summary, single-region tTMB has stronger correlation with multi-region tTMB compared with bTMB. ITH has an impact on tTMB, especially in high-level ITH patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blood TMB; ITH; NSCLC; Tissue TMB; bTMB; tTMB

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30944026      PMCID: PMC6448263          DOI: 10.1186/s40425-019-0581-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Immunother Cancer        ISSN: 2051-1426            Impact factor:   13.751


Background

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is emerging as a practical biomarker for predicting the response of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) [1]. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with higher tissue TMB (tTMB) or blood TMB (bTMB) levels are associated with better efficacy of ICIs [2, 3]. However, the correlations of single-region tTMB, multi-region tTMB and bTMB remain to be determined. Moreover, whether intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) has impact on TMB should be clarified.

Methods

We collected multi-region tumor tissues with matched blood from 32 operative NSCLC patients (Additional file 1: Table S1), including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) (n = 9), kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS)-mutant LUAD (n = 6), EGFR&KRAS-wild-type LUAD (n = 11), lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) (n = 5) and lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC) (n = 1). Multi-region tumor tissues (approximate size in 1.5 mm*1.5 mm*1.5 mm for each region at least) were collected in different directions of the primary lesion. Then we explored the correlations among single-region tTMB, multi-region tTMB and bTMB through a 1021-gene panel sequencing (Additional file 1: Table S2). TMB reflected somatic non-synonymous single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions, and deletions per megabase of the panel region. Single-region tTMB was defined as the number of somatic non-synonymous mutations per megabase from single region. Multi-region tTMB was calculated with non-repetitive mutations from all regions per megabase. bTMB was analyzed with tumor-derived mutations from ctDNA. TMB of > 9 mutations/Mb was classified as high, using the top quartile threshold of 2000 samples from database of Geneplus. Besides, we used tTMB fold-change, computed by the mean tTMB of multi-regions through a random iterated algorithm divided by that of the single region, to evaluate the influence of the enrolled region numbers on tTMB and explored the impact of ITH on tTMB. ITH is evaluated by ITH index (ITHi). Much more details about methods were shown in Additional file 2: Supplementary Methods.

Results

We calculated TMB value between our panel sequencing and whole exome sequencing (WES) and observed significant consistency (Additional file 3: Figure S1), indicating that TMB calculated via our panel sequencing is a valid measurement. EGFR-mutant LUAD showed significantly lower multi-region tTMB (median, 4.32, 1.44–14.4) than those in KRAS-mutant LUAD (median, 10.08, 5.76–84.96, P = 0.0282) and EGFR&KRAS-wild-type LUAD (median, 14.4, 4.32–38.88, P = 0.0281) (Additional file 3: Figure S2). Both of single-region tTMB and bTMB showed strong correlations with multi-region tTMB, while the former correlated better (Pearson r = 0.94, P = 2E-84, Pearson r = 0.47, P = 0.0067) (Fig. 1a). It showed extremely high specificity (100%) but relatively low sensitivity (43%) when using bTMB to define TMB-high patients, while most false-negative predictions were in early-stage (I-II) patients (Fig. 1b). The classification accuracy was higher in late-stage (III-IV) patients (83%) than that in early-stage (I-II) patients (70%). Additional file 3: Figure S3 made the comparisons and overlaps of tumor-derived mutational profiles among each region of tumor tissues and the corresponding ctDNA for each enrolled patient. It exhibited extensive heterogeneity of the mutational profile overlaps between ctDNA and the tumor DNA.
Fig. 1

The correlations of TMB among single-region tissue, multi-region tissues and blood. a Single-region tTMB vs. multi-region tTMB & bTMB vs. multi-region tTMB. The Pearson correlations were performed between single-region tTMB and multi-region tTMB (blue, r = 0.94), and between bTMB and multi-region tTMB (red, r = 0.47). TMB reflected somatic non-synonymous SNVs, insertions, and deletions per megabase of the panel region. Single-region tTMB was defined as the number of somatic non-synonymous mutations per megabase from single region. Multi-region tTMB was calculated with non-repetitive mutations from all regions per megabase. bTMB was analyzed with tumor-derived mutations from ctDNA. b bTMB level evaluation using multi-region tTMB level as standard. The Pearson correlations between bTMB and multi-region tTMB in all patients (left), I-II stage patients (middle), and III-IV stage patients (right) were 0.47, 0.47 and 0.58, respectively. Tumor stage were evaluated following the guidelines in the International Staging System for Lung Cancer, 7th edition. The sensitivity (true positive rate: the number of high-level bTMB & high-level multi-region tTMB patients divided by the number of high-level multi-region tTMB patients) and specificity (true negative rate: the number of low-level bTMB & low-level multi-region tTMB patients divided by the number of low-level multi-region tTMB patients) were analysed using multi-region tTMB level as golden standard. TMB of > 9 mutations/Mb was classified as high, using the top quartile threshold of 2000 samples from database of Geneplus. Abbreviations: TMB, tumor mutational burden; tTMB, tissue TMB; bTMB, blood TMB; r, Pearson correlation coefficient

The correlations of TMB among single-region tissue, multi-region tissues and blood. a Single-region tTMB vs. multi-region tTMB & bTMB vs. multi-region tTMB. The Pearson correlations were performed between single-region tTMB and multi-region tTMB (blue, r = 0.94), and between bTMB and multi-region tTMB (red, r = 0.47). TMB reflected somatic non-synonymous SNVs, insertions, and deletions per megabase of the panel region. Single-region tTMB was defined as the number of somatic non-synonymous mutations per megabase from single region. Multi-region tTMB was calculated with non-repetitive mutations from all regions per megabase. bTMB was analyzed with tumor-derived mutations from ctDNA. b bTMB level evaluation using multi-region tTMB level as standard. The Pearson correlations between bTMB and multi-region tTMB in all patients (left), I-II stage patients (middle), and III-IV stage patients (right) were 0.47, 0.47 and 0.58, respectively. Tumor stage were evaluated following the guidelines in the International Staging System for Lung Cancer, 7th edition. The sensitivity (true positive rate: the number of high-level bTMB & high-level multi-region tTMB patients divided by the number of high-level multi-region tTMB patients) and specificity (true negative rate: the number of low-level bTMB & low-level multi-region tTMB patients divided by the number of low-level multi-region tTMB patients) were analysed using multi-region tTMB level as golden standard. TMB of > 9 mutations/Mb was classified as high, using the top quartile threshold of 2000 samples from database of Geneplus. Abbreviations: TMB, tumor mutational burden; tTMB, tissue TMB; bTMB, blood TMB; r, Pearson correlation coefficient Compared to single region, we found significantly enhanced tTMB fold-change if taking multi-regions for consideration. However, it showed insignificant tTMB fold-change increase if the included regions’ number more than three (Fig. 2a). Subgroup analysis exhibited similar trends among different molecular subtypes of NSCLC, especially in EGFR-mutant LUAD (Fig. 2b).
Fig. 2

tTMB fold-change based on multi-regions compared with single region. a For overall patients. For overall analysis, tTMB fold-change is computed by the mean tTMB of two-regions, three-regions, four-regions, five-regions, six-regions, seven-regions or eight-regions through a random iterated algorithm, then divided by that of the single region. b For different NSCLC subtypes. For subgroup analysis, tTMB fold-change is computed by the mean tTMB of two-regions or three-regions through a random iterated algorithm, then divided by that of the single region, because it shows insignificant tTMB fold-change increase if the included regions’ number more than three. Abbreviations: TMB, tumor mutational burden; tTMB, tissue TMB

tTMB fold-change based on multi-regions compared with single region. a For overall patients. For overall analysis, tTMB fold-change is computed by the mean tTMB of two-regions, three-regions, four-regions, five-regions, six-regions, seven-regions or eight-regions through a random iterated algorithm, then divided by that of the single region. b For different NSCLC subtypes. For subgroup analysis, tTMB fold-change is computed by the mean tTMB of two-regions or three-regions through a random iterated algorithm, then divided by that of the single region, because it shows insignificant tTMB fold-change increase if the included regions’ number more than three. Abbreviations: TMB, tumor mutational burden; tTMB, tissue TMB ITH-high patients had significantly higher tTMB fold-change compared with ITH-low patients (2.32 vs. 1.02, P = 8.879e-05) (Fig. 3a). The conversion rate of tTMB level status (tTMB-low to tTMB-high) in the ITH-high group was numerically higher than that in the ITH-low group (16.67% vs. 3.84%) if taking multi-region tTMB analysis (Fig. 3b).
Fig. 3

Impact of ITH on TMB assessment. a tTMB fold-change comparison between ITHi-high and ITHi-low patients. tTMB fold-change is computed by the mean tTMB of three-regions through a random iterated algorithm, then divided by that of the single region. b The conversion rate of tTMB level status between ITHi-high and ITHi-low patients if taking multi-region tTMB analysis. ITH index (ITHi) was calculated with specific formula displayed in Additional file 2: Supplementary Methods. ITHi ranges from 0 (lowest ITH) to 1 (highest ITH). If the tumor has less shared somatic genetic alterations after multi-region sequencing, the ITHi of this tumor will be higher. Otherwise, the ITHi of this tumor will be lower. Abbreviations: ITH, intratumor heterogeneity; TMB, tumor mutational burden; tTMB, tissue TMB

Impact of ITH on TMB assessment. a tTMB fold-change comparison between ITHi-high and ITHi-low patients. tTMB fold-change is computed by the mean tTMB of three-regions through a random iterated algorithm, then divided by that of the single region. b The conversion rate of tTMB level status between ITHi-high and ITHi-low patients if taking multi-region tTMB analysis. ITH index (ITHi) was calculated with specific formula displayed in Additional file 2: Supplementary Methods. ITHi ranges from 0 (lowest ITH) to 1 (highest ITH). If the tumor has less shared somatic genetic alterations after multi-region sequencing, the ITHi of this tumor will be higher. Otherwise, the ITHi of this tumor will be lower. Abbreviations: ITH, intratumor heterogeneity; TMB, tumor mutational burden; tTMB, tissue TMB

Discussion

We found single-region tTMB had stronger correlation with multi-region tTMB compared with bTMB, thus revealed the limitation of ctDNA for TMB analysis. It showed low sensitivity of bTMB in TMB level evaluation using multi-region tTMB level as standard,while most false-negative predictions existed in early-stage patients. It may be due to much lower circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) released into blood in early-stage NSCLC, which involves a smaller tumor load and/or less metastasis [4]. Although bTMB might not correlate as well with tTMB as much as the single and multi-region tTMB measurements between themselves, bTMB could still be predictive for ICI response in advanced NSCLC [3, 5]. One possible reason is not just the number of mutations per se that is important, but the quality of these mutations and the number and quality of immune-actionable neo-antigens they generate. Thus, bTMB may be predictive if it detects the “useful” or “immune actionable” mutations as well as tTMB. This is the real issue in this field and why simple measures of overall TMB are really emerging to be useless as a biomarker. More prospective trials are still necessary to validate the reliability, stability and the cut-off value of bTMB as a biomarker for ICI efficacy. We also need to explore the real immune actionable mutational profiles that may be a better biomarker for ICI efficacy compared with overall TMB. Moreover, we found ITH had an impact on tTMB estimation, especially in high-level ITH patients. Surprisingly, after considering more sampling regions, some patients who were considered low-TMB previously, were reclassified as high-TMB. A recent study demonstrated clinical benefit from ICI therapy for NSCLC patients with high-TMB [6]. However, another study showed a part of (18.2 to 35.3%) low-TMB NSCLC patients still had benefit from ICIs [2]. Our study revealed that single region sampling would underestimate the tTMB level in patients with high ITH, perhaps providing an explanation for why some low-TMB patients evaluated by a single region biopsy still achieve benefit from ICIs. Use of multi-region sampling methods may consequently result in more comprehensive and accurate tTMB evaluation, allowing identification of high-TMB patients, especially those with high ITHi, such as EGFR-mutant LUAD, as these patients may reap benefit from ICIs. Major limitations of this study were the sample size and the single-centered design. Besides, all of the enrolled patients received no ICIs, so we could not evaluated therapeutic efficacy based on single-region tTMB, multi-region tTMB and bTMB in post hoc analysis.

Conclusions

Single-region tTMB has stronger correlation with multi-region tTMB compared with bTMB, revealing potential limitation of TMB analysis using ctDNA. ITH has an impact on tTMB, especially in high-level ITH patients, thus firstly demonstrating tTMB heterogeneity and providing an explanation for why some low-TMB patients evaluated by a single region biopsy still achieve benefit from ICIs. Table S1. Clinical characteristics of the enrolled 32 NSCLC patients. Table S2. List of target regions of the pan-cancer 1021-gene panel. (DOCX 43 kb) Supplementary Methods. (DOCX 24 kb) Figure S1. The correlations of TMB value between panel sequencing and WES in published databases. Figure S2. The comparison of multi-region tTMB among different NSCLC subtypes. Figure S3. The comparisons and overlaps of tumor-derived mutational profiles among tumor tissues in each region and the corresponding ctDNA. (PDF 1439 kb)
  5 in total

1.  First-Line Nivolumab in Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  David P Carbone; Martin Reck; Luis Paz-Ares; Benjamin Creelan; Leora Horn; Martin Steins; Enriqueta Felip; Michel M van den Heuvel; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; Firas Badin; Neal Ready; T Jeroen N Hiltermann; Suresh Nair; Rosalyn Juergens; Solange Peters; Elisa Minenza; John M Wrangle; Delvys Rodriguez-Abreu; Hossein Borghaei; George R Blumenschein; Liza C Villaruz; Libor Havel; Jana Krejci; Jesus Corral Jaime; Han Chang; William J Geese; Prabhu Bhagavatheeswaran; Allen C Chen; Mark A Socinski
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Tumor Mutational Burden as an Independent Predictor of Response to Immunotherapy in Diverse Cancers.

Authors:  Aaron M Goodman; Shumei Kato; Lyudmila Bazhenova; Sandip P Patel; Garrett M Frampton; Vincent Miller; Philip J Stephens; Gregory A Daniels; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 6.261

3.  Blood-based tumor mutational burden as a predictor of clinical benefit in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with atezolizumab.

Authors:  David R Gandara; Sarah M Paul; Marcin Kowanetz; Erica Schleifman; Wei Zou; Yan Li; Achim Rittmeyer; Louis Fehrenbacher; Geoff Otto; Christine Malboeuf; Daniel S Lieber; Doron Lipson; Jacob Silterra; Lukas Amler; Todd Riehl; Craig A Cummings; Priti S Hegde; Alan Sandler; Marcus Ballinger; David Fabrizio; Tony Mok; David S Shames
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Molecular Determinants of Response to Anti-Programmed Cell Death (PD)-1 and Anti-Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Blockade in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Profiled With Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing.

Authors:  Hira Rizvi; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Konnor La; Walid Chatila; Philip Jonsson; Darragh Halpenny; Andrew Plodkowski; Niamh Long; Jennifer L Sauter; Natasha Rekhtman; Travis Hollmann; Kurt A Schalper; Justin F Gainor; Ronglai Shen; Ai Ni; Kathryn C Arbour; Taha Merghoub; Jedd Wolchok; Alexandra Snyder; Jamie E Chaft; Mark G Kris; Charles M Rudin; Nicholas D Socci; Michael F Berger; Barry S Taylor; Ahmet Zehir; David B Solit; Maria E Arcila; Marc Ladanyi; Gregory J Riely; Nikolaus Schultz; Matthew D Hellmann
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Phylogenetic ctDNA analysis depicts early-stage lung cancer evolution.

Authors:  Christopher Abbosh; Nicolai J Birkbak; Gareth A Wilson; Mariam Jamal-Hanjani; Tudor Constantin; Raheleh Salari; John Le Quesne; David A Moore; Selvaraju Veeriah; Rachel Rosenthal; Teresa Marafioti; Eser Kirkizlar; Thomas B K Watkins; Nicholas McGranahan; Sophia Ward; Luke Martinson; Joan Riley; Francesco Fraioli; Maise Al Bakir; Eva Grönroos; Francisco Zambrana; Raymondo Endozo; Wenya Linda Bi; Fiona M Fennessy; Nicole Sponer; Diana Johnson; Joanne Laycock; Seema Shafi; Justyna Czyzewska-Khan; Andrew Rowan; Tim Chambers; Nik Matthews; Samra Turajlic; Crispin Hiley; Siow Ming Lee; Martin D Forster; Tanya Ahmad; Mary Falzon; Elaine Borg; David Lawrence; Martin Hayward; Shyam Kolvekar; Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos; Sam M Janes; Ricky Thakrar; Asia Ahmed; Fiona Blackhall; Yvonne Summers; Dina Hafez; Ashwini Naik; Apratim Ganguly; Stephanie Kareht; Rajesh Shah; Leena Joseph; Anne Marie Quinn; Phil A Crosbie; Babu Naidu; Gary Middleton; Gerald Langman; Simon Trotter; Marianne Nicolson; Hardy Remmen; Keith Kerr; Mahendran Chetty; Lesley Gomersall; Dean A Fennell; Apostolos Nakas; Sridhar Rathinam; Girija Anand; Sajid Khan; Peter Russell; Veni Ezhil; Babikir Ismail; Melanie Irvin-Sellers; Vineet Prakash; Jason F Lester; Malgorzata Kornaszewska; Richard Attanoos; Haydn Adams; Helen Davies; Dahmane Oukrif; Ayse U Akarca; John A Hartley; Helen L Lowe; Sara Lock; Natasha Iles; Harriet Bell; Yenting Ngai; Greg Elgar; Zoltan Szallasi; Roland F Schwarz; Javier Herrero; Aengus Stewart; Sergio A Quezada; Karl S Peggs; Peter Van Loo; Caroline Dive; C Jimmy Lin; Matthew Rabinowitz; Hugo J W L Aerts; Allan Hackshaw; Jacqui A Shaw; Bernhard G Zimmermann; Charles Swanton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 49.962

  5 in total
  17 in total

1.  First-line immunotherapy for patients with advanced stage or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer…finally what threshold of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells?

Authors:  Paul Hofman
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2019-10

2.  A lung adenocarcinoma patient with co-mutations of MET and EGFR exon20 insertion responded to crizotinib.

Authors:  Yan Chen; Bo Jiang; Yuange He; Chu Zhang; Wenjie Zhou; Cheng Fang; Dejian Gu; Minxia Zhang; Mei Ji; Juntao Shi; Xin Yang
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.622

3.  Mutant-Allele Tumor Heterogeneity, a Favorable Biomarker to Assess Intra-Tumor Heterogeneity, in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Xiaoxuan Wu; Peng Song; Lei Guo; Jianming Ying; Wenbin Li
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 5.738

4.  Spatial heterogeneity and organization of tumor mutation burden with immune infiltrates within tumors based on whole slide images correlated with patient survival in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Hongming Xu; Jean René Clemenceau; Sunho Park; Jinhwan Choi; Sung Hak Lee; Tae Hyun Hwang
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2022-05-21

5.  Identifying Genomic Alterations in Small Cell Lung Cancer Using the Liquid Biopsy of Bronchial Washing Fluid.

Authors:  Jinfang Zhai; Songyan Han; Qinxiang Guo; Binbin Shan; Jing Wang; Yanrong Guo; Guoping Tong; Chang Zhao; Yuan Li; Qiao Han; Xiaoqin An; Ruiqing Yue; Li Wang; Tingting Guo; Zhentian Liu; Yaping Xu; Jianqiang Li; Weihua Yang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Combinatorial assessment of ctDNA release and mutational burden predicts anti-PD(L)1 therapy outcome in nonsmall-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Wenfeng Fang; Yuxiang Ma; Jiani C Yin; Huaqiang Zhou; Fufeng Wang; Hua Bao; Ao Wang; Xue Wu; Shaodong Hong; Yunpeng Yang; Yan Huang; Hongyun Zhao; Yang W Shao; Li Zhang
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2020-01

7.  Association of genetic and immuno-characteristics with clinical outcomes in patients with RET-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Chang Lu; Xiao-Rong Dong; Jun Zhao; Xu-Chao Zhang; Hua-Jun Chen; Qing Zhou; Hai-Yan Tu; Xing-Hao Ai; Xiao-Feng Chen; Gai-Li An; Jun Bai; Jin-Lu Shan; Yi-Na Wang; Shuan-Ying Yang; Xiang Liu; Wu Zhuang; Hui-Ta Wu; Bo Zhu; Xue-Feng Xia; Rong-Rong Chen; De-Jian Gu; Hua-Min Xu; Yi-Long Wu; Jin-Ji Yang
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 17.388

8.  Potential of circulating tumor DNA as a predictor of therapeutic responses to immune checkpoint blockades in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Yeon Jeong Kim; Yumi Kang; Jun Seop Kim; Hyun Hwan Sung; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Hyun Moo Lee; Donghyun Park; Woong-Yang Park; Minyong Kang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Targeting Neoepitopes to Treat Solid Malignancies: Immunosurgery.

Authors:  Eric de Sousa; Joana R Lérias; Antonio Beltran; Georgia Paraschoudi; Carolina Condeço; Jéssica Kamiki; Patrícia Alexandra António; Nuno Figueiredo; Carlos Carvalho; Mireia Castillo-Martin; Zhe Wang; Dário Ligeiro; Martin Rao; Markus Maeurer
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 7.561

10.  Identification of a Gene Prognostic Model of Gastric Cancer Based on Analysis of Tumor Mutation Burden.

Authors:  Weijun Ma; Weidong Li; Lei Xu; Lu Liu; Yu Xia; Liping Yang; Mingxu Da
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 3.201

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.