Hao-Xiang Wu1, Zi-Xian Wang1, Qi Zhao2, Dong-Liang Chen1, Ming-Ming He1, Lu-Ping Yang1, Ying-Nan Wang2, Ying Jin1, Chao Ren1, Hui-Yan Luo1, Zhi-Qiang Wang1, Feng Wang1. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China. 2. Department of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been widely studied as a predictive biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Besides, evidence suggests frameshift indels are a highly immunogenic mutational class and thus a potentially superior biomarker. However, the general prognostic impact of TMB and indel burden in patients with solid tumors has not been systematically investigated. METHODS: We analyzed 20 primary solid cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Clinicopathologic factors, TMB and indel burden were collected or calculated. For each cancer type, the impact of TMB or indel burden on overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression with the method of inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Twenty cancer types from 6,035 patients were analyzed. Survival analysis showed that TMB had a significant impact on OS in 14 out of these 20 cancer types. According to the general survival impact of TMB, they could be classified into three groups, namely the TMB-Worse (eight cancer types), TMB-Better (six cancer types) and TMB-Similar (six cancer types) group, in which higher TMB was associated with inferior, superior, or similar OS, respectively. The survival impacts of TMB in the TMB-Worse and TMB-Better groups were generally consistent when limited to genes from two FDA-approved panels. Notably, in two out of the six cancer types in the TMB-Similar group, the indel burden significantly affected OS. CONCLUSIONS: TMB, as well as indel burden, has divergent prognostic impact in different cancer types, thus could be incorporated in prognostication and risk stratification. More importantly, the general prognostic impact should be taken into account when establishing the predictive function of TMB to ICI treatment. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been widely studied as a predictive biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Besides, evidence suggests frameshift indels are a highly immunogenic mutational class and thus a potentially superior biomarker. However, the general prognostic impact of TMB and indel burden in patients with solid tumors has not been systematically investigated. METHODS: We analyzed 20 primary solid cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Clinicopathologic factors, TMB and indel burden were collected or calculated. For each cancer type, the impact of TMB or indel burden on overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression with the method of inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Twenty cancer types from 6,035 patients were analyzed. Survival analysis showed that TMB had a significant impact on OS in 14 out of these 20 cancer types. According to the general survival impact of TMB, they could be classified into three groups, namely the TMB-Worse (eight cancer types), TMB-Better (six cancer types) and TMB-Similar (six cancer types) group, in which higher TMB was associated with inferior, superior, or similar OS, respectively. The survival impacts of TMB in the TMB-Worse and TMB-Better groups were generally consistent when limited to genes from two FDA-approved panels. Notably, in two out of the six cancer types in the TMB-Similar group, the indel burden significantly affected OS. CONCLUSIONS: TMB, as well as indel burden, has divergent prognostic impact in different cancer types, thus could be incorporated in prognostication and risk stratification. More importantly, the general prognostic impact should be taken into account when establishing the predictive function of TMB to ICI treatment. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Indel burden; The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA); pan-cancer analysis; prognosis; tumor mutational burden (TMB)
Authors: Samra Turajlic; Kevin Litchfield; Hang Xu; Rachel Rosenthal; Nicholas McGranahan; James L Reading; Yien Ning S Wong; Andrew Rowan; Nnennaya Kanu; Maise Al Bakir; Tim Chambers; Roberto Salgado; Peter Savas; Sherene Loi; Nicolai J Birkbak; Laurent Sansregret; Martin Gore; James Larkin; Sergio A Quezada; Charles Swanton Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Volker Endris; Ivo Buchhalter; Michael Allgäuer; Eugen Rempel; Amelie Lier; Anna-Lena Volckmar; Martina Kirchner; Moritz von Winterfeld; Jonas Leichsenring; Olaf Neumann; Roland Penzel; Wilko Weichert; Hanno Glimm; Stefan Fröhling; Hauke Winter; Felix Herth; Michael Thomas; Peter Schirmacher; Jan Budczies; Albrecht Stenzinger Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Federico Innocenti; Fang-Shu Ou; Xueping Qu; Tyler J Zemla; Donna Niedzwiecki; Rachel Tam; Shilpi Mahajan; Richard M Goldberg; Monica M Bertagnolli; Charles D Blanke; Hanna Sanoff; James Atkins; Blasé Polite; Alan P Venook; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Omar Kabbarah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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: Matthew D Hellmann; Luis Paz-Ares; Reyes Bernabe Caro; Bogdan Zurawski; Sang-We Kim; Enric Carcereny Costa; Keunchil Park; Aurelia Alexandru; Lorena Lupinacci; Emmanuel de la Mora Jimenez; Hiroshi Sakai; Istvan Albert; Alain Vergnenegre; Solange Peters; Konstantinos Syrigos; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Reck; Hossein Borghaei; Julie R Brahmer; Kenneth J O'Byrne; William J Geese; Prabhu Bhagavatheeswaran; Sridhar K Rabindran; Ravi S Kasinathan; Faith E Nathan; Suresh S Ramalingam Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kyrollis Attalla; Renzo G DiNatale; Phillip M Rappold; Christopher J Fong; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Andrew W Silagy; Stanley Weng; Jonathan Coleman; Chung-Han Lee; Maria I Carlo; Jeremy C Durack; Stephen B Solomon; Victor E Reuter; Paul Russo; Timothy A Chan; Robert J Motzer; Nikolaus D Schultz; Ed Reznik; Martin H Voss; A Ari Hakimi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hua You; Zijun Y Xu-Monette; Li Wei; Harry Nunns; Máté L Nagy; Govind Bhagat; Xiaosheng Fang; Feng Zhu; Carlo Visco; Alexandar Tzankov; Karen Dybkaer; April Chiu; Wayne Tam; Youli Zu; Eric D Hsi; Fredrick B Hagemeister; Jooryung Huh; Maurilio Ponzoni; Andrés J M Ferreri; Michael B Møller; Benjamin M Parsons; J Han Van Krieken; Miguel A Piris; Jane N Winter; Yong Li; Qingyan Au; Bing Xu; Maher Albitar; Ken H Young Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 8.110