scholarly journals Improvement in the Selection of Patients for Anti-PD1 Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Analyzing Tumor Mutational Burden and Retrotransposon Activity as Possible New Biomarker of Effectiveness

Author(s):  
Cobo-Dols Manuel
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e001904
Author(s):  
Javier Ramos-Paradas ◽  
Susana Hernández-Prieto ◽  
David Lora ◽  
Elena Sanchez ◽  
Aranzazu Rosado ◽  
...  

BackgroundTumor mutational burden (TMB) is a recently proposed predictive biomarker for immunotherapy in solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Available assays for TMB determination differ in horizontal coverage, gene content and algorithms, leading to discrepancies in results, impacting patient selection. A harmonization study of TMB assessment with available assays in a cohort of patients with NSCLC is urgently needed.MethodsWe evaluated the TMB assessment obtained with two marketed next generation sequencing panels: TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) and Oncomine Tumor Mutation Load (OTML) versus a reference assay (Foundation One, FO) in 96 NSCLC samples. Additionally, we studied the level of agreement among the three methods with respect to PD-L1 expression in tumors, checked the level of different immune infiltrates versus TMB, and performed an inter-laboratory reproducibility study. Finally, adjusted cut-off values were determined.ResultsBoth panels showed strong agreement with FO, with concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) of 0.933 (95% CI 0.908 to 0.959) for TSO500 and 0.881 (95% CI 0.840 to 0.922) for OTML. The corresponding CCCs were 0.951 (TSO500-FO) and 0.919 (OTML-FO) in tumors with <1% of cells expressing PD-L1 (PD-L1<1%; N=55), and 0.861 (TSO500-FO) and 0.722 (OTML-FO) in tumors with PD-L1≥1% (N=41). Inter-laboratory reproducibility analyses showed higher reproducibility with TSO500. No significant differences were found in terms of immune infiltration versus TMB. Adjusted cut-off values corresponding to 10 muts/Mb with FO needed to be lowered to 7.847 muts/Mb (TSO500) and 8.380 muts/Mb (OTML) to ensure a sensitivity >88%. With these cut-offs, the positive predictive value was 78.57% (95% CI 67.82 to 89.32) and the negative predictive value was 87.50% (95% CI 77.25 to 97.75) for TSO500, while for OTML they were 73.33% (95% CI 62.14 to 84.52) and 86.11% (95% CI 74.81 to 97.41), respectively.ConclusionsBoth panels exhibited robust analytical performances for TMB assessment, with stronger concordances in patients with negative PD-L1 expression. TSO500 showed a higher inter-laboratory reproducibility. The cut-offs for each assay were lowered to optimal overlap with FO.


Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heeke ◽  
Benzaquen ◽  
Long-Mira ◽  
Audelan ◽  
Lespinet ◽  
...  

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as an important potential biomarker for prediction of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), notably in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its in-house assessment in routine clinical practice is currently challenging and validation is urgently needed. We have analyzed sixty NSCLC and thirty-six melanoma patients with ICI treatment, using the FoundationOne test (FO) in addition to in-house testing using the Oncomine TML (OTML) panel and evaluated the durable clinical benefit (DCB), defined by >6 months without progressive disease. Comparison of TMB values obtained by both tests demonstrated a high correlation in NSCLC (R2 = 0.73) and melanoma (R2 = 0.94). The association of TMB with DCB was comparable between OTML (area-under the curve (AUC) = 0.67) and FO (AUC = 0.71) in NSCLC. Median TMB was higher in the DCB cohort and progression-free survival (PFS) was prolonged in patients with high TMB (OTML HR = 0.35; FO HR = 0.45). In contrast, we detected no differences in PFS and median TMB in our melanoma cohort. Combining TMB with PD-L1 and CD8-expression by immunohistochemistry improved the predictive value. We conclude that in our cohort both approaches are equally able to assess TMB and to predict DCB in NSCLC.


2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 5191-5198
Author(s):  
Yuhui Ma ◽  
Quan Li ◽  
Yaxi Du ◽  
Wanlin Chen ◽  
Xing Liu ◽  
...  

Cancer Cell ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 853-861.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Hellmann ◽  
Margaret K. Callahan ◽  
Mark M. Awad ◽  
Emiliano Calvo ◽  
Paolo A. Ascierto ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Chang ◽  
Ariella Sasson ◽  
Sujaya Srinivasan ◽  
Ryan Golhar ◽  
Danielle M. Greenawalt ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document