Establishing guidelines to harmonize tumor mutational burden (TMB): in silico assessment of variation in TMB quantification across diagnostic platforms: phase I of the Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project.
TMB
biomarker
harmonization
immune checkpoint inhibitors
immunotherapies
tumor mutational burden
Journal
Journal for immunotherapy of cancer
ISSN: 2051-1426
Titre abrégé: J Immunother Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101620585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
accepted:
11
02
2020
entrez:
29
3
2020
pubmed:
29
3
2020
medline:
1
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of interrogated genomic sequence, demonstrates predictive biomarker potential for the identification of patients with cancer most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. TMB is optimally calculated by whole exome sequencing (WES), but next-generation sequencing targeted panels provide TMB estimates in a time-effective and cost-effective manner. However, differences in panel size and gene coverage, in addition to the underlying bioinformatics pipelines, are known drivers of variability in TMB estimates across laboratories. By directly comparing panel-based TMB estimates from participating laboratories, this study aims to characterize the theoretical variability of panel-based TMB estimates, and provides guidelines on TMB reporting, analytic validation requirements and reference standard alignment in order to maintain consistency of TMB estimation across platforms. Eleven laboratories used WES data from The Cancer Genome Atlas Multi-Center Mutation calling in Multiple Cancers (MC3) samples and calculated TMB from the subset of the exome restricted to the genes covered by their targeted panel using their own bioinformatics pipeline (panel TMB). A reference TMB value was calculated from the entire exome using a uniform bioinformatics pipeline all members agreed on (WES TMB). Linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between WES and panel TMB for all 32 cancer types combined and separately. Variability in panel TMB values at various WES TMB values was also quantified using 95% prediction limits. Study results demonstrated that variability within and between panel TMB values increases as the WES TMB values increase. For each panel, prediction limits based on linear regression analyses that modeled panel TMB as a function of WES TMB were calculated and found to approximately capture the intended 95% of observed panel TMB values. Certain cancer types, such as uterine, bladder and colon cancers exhibited greater variability in panel TMB values, compared with lung and head and neck cancers. Increasing uptake of TMB as a predictive biomarker in the clinic creates an urgent need to bring stakeholders together to agree on the harmonization of key aspects of panel-based TMB estimation, such as the standardization of TMB reporting, standardization of analytical validation studies and the alignment of panel-based TMB values with a reference standard. These harmonization efforts should improve consistency and reliability of panel TMB estimates and aid in clinical decision-making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of interrogated genomic sequence, demonstrates predictive biomarker potential for the identification of patients with cancer most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. TMB is optimally calculated by whole exome sequencing (WES), but next-generation sequencing targeted panels provide TMB estimates in a time-effective and cost-effective manner. However, differences in panel size and gene coverage, in addition to the underlying bioinformatics pipelines, are known drivers of variability in TMB estimates across laboratories. By directly comparing panel-based TMB estimates from participating laboratories, this study aims to characterize the theoretical variability of panel-based TMB estimates, and provides guidelines on TMB reporting, analytic validation requirements and reference standard alignment in order to maintain consistency of TMB estimation across platforms.
METHODS
Eleven laboratories used WES data from The Cancer Genome Atlas Multi-Center Mutation calling in Multiple Cancers (MC3) samples and calculated TMB from the subset of the exome restricted to the genes covered by their targeted panel using their own bioinformatics pipeline (panel TMB). A reference TMB value was calculated from the entire exome using a uniform bioinformatics pipeline all members agreed on (WES TMB). Linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between WES and panel TMB for all 32 cancer types combined and separately. Variability in panel TMB values at various WES TMB values was also quantified using 95% prediction limits.
RESULTS
Study results demonstrated that variability within and between panel TMB values increases as the WES TMB values increase. For each panel, prediction limits based on linear regression analyses that modeled panel TMB as a function of WES TMB were calculated and found to approximately capture the intended 95% of observed panel TMB values. Certain cancer types, such as uterine, bladder and colon cancers exhibited greater variability in panel TMB values, compared with lung and head and neck cancers.
CONCLUSIONS
Increasing uptake of TMB as a predictive biomarker in the clinic creates an urgent need to bring stakeholders together to agree on the harmonization of key aspects of panel-based TMB estimation, such as the standardization of TMB reporting, standardization of analytical validation studies and the alignment of panel-based TMB values with a reference standard. These harmonization efforts should improve consistency and reliability of panel TMB estimates and aid in clinical decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32217756
pii: jitc-2019-000147
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2019-000147
pmc: PMC7174078
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase I
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: DF: employment with Foundation Medicine and stockholder in Roche. VF: employment with NeoGenomics Inc and stockholder in NeoGenomics Inc. S-JC: employment with ACT Genomics and stockholder in ACT Genomics. JRW: founder and owner of Resphira Biosciences and paid consultant to PGDx. PW: employment with Illumina and stockholder in Illumina. JB: employment with Bristol-Myers Squibb, shareholder in Bristol-Myers Squibb and shareholder in Johnson & Johnson. JCB: employment with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and stocks in AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. RC: employment with Thermo Fisher Scientific. WSC: employment with Caris Life Sciences. JHC: employment with ACT Genomics. DC: employment with Thermo Fisher Scientific and stockholder in Thermo Fisher Scientific. JSD: employment with Personal Genome Diagnostics. VG: employment with QIAGEN. MH: received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb; is paid a consultant to Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Nektar, Syndax, Mirati and Shattuck Labs; has received travel support/honoraria from AztraZeneca and BMS and a patent has been filed by MSK related to the use of tumor mutation burden to predict response to immunotherapy (PCT/US2015/062208), which has received licensing fees from PGDx. EH: employment with Guardant Health Inc and stockholder in Guardant Health Inc. YL: employment with Foundation Medicine while engaged in the research project (March 2019). Currently, an employee of Thrive Sciences, Inc and stockholder of Thrive Sciences, Inc. AP: employment with QIAGEN. KJQ: employment with Guardant Health Inc and stockholder in Guardant Health Inc. NR: NR and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center have a patent filing (PCT/US2015/062208) for the use of tumor mutation burden and HLA for prediction of immunotherapy efficacy, which is licensed to Personal Genome Diagnostics. NR is a founder, shareholder and serves on the scientific advisory board of Gritstone Oncology. NR has also consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, EMD Sorono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron. HT: employment with Caris Life Sciences. CW: employment with Bristol-Myers Squibb, shareholder in Bristol-Myers Squibb ad shareholder in Johnson & Johnson. MX: employment with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. CZ: employment with Illumina and stockholder in Illumina. AS: advisory board and/or speech honoraria from: Bayer, BMS, MSD, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Seattle Genomics, Illumina, Thermo Fisher, Takeda. Research funding from: Chugai, BMS.
Références
Lancet. 2016 May 7;387(10031):1909-20
pubmed: 26952546
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2509-20
pubmed: 26028255
Science. 2015 May 15;348(6236):760-1
pubmed: 25977539
Cell. 2015 Apr 9;161(2):205-14
pubmed: 25860605
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2019 Aug;58(8):578-588
pubmed: 30664300
Semin Oncol. 2014 Feb;41(1):126-32
pubmed: 24565586
Expert Opin Emerg Drugs. 2016 Jun;21(2):195-207
pubmed: 27148822
Cell. 2017 Nov 16;171(5):1042-1056.e10
pubmed: 29056344
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;36(7):633-641
pubmed: 29337640
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018 Dec;7(6):616-630
pubmed: 30505706
J Mol Diagn. 2015 May;17(3):251-64
pubmed: 25801821
Cancer Cell. 2015 Apr 13;27(4):450-61
pubmed: 25858804
N Engl J Med. 2014 Dec 4;371(23):2189-2199
pubmed: 25409260
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Nov;31(11):1023-31
pubmed: 24142049
Cell Syst. 2018 Mar 28;6(3):271-281.e7
pubmed: 29596782
Sci Transl Med. 2018 Sep 5;10(457):
pubmed: 30185652
Cell. 2017 Nov 2;171(4):934-949.e16
pubmed: 29033130
Science. 2015 Apr 3;348(6230):124-8
pubmed: 25765070
Science. 2015 Oct 9;350(6257):207-211
pubmed: 26359337
Nat Med. 2017 Jun;23(6):703-713
pubmed: 28481359
Cell. 2016 Mar 24;165(1):35-44
pubmed: 26997480
Cancer Med. 2018 Mar;7(3):746-756
pubmed: 29436178
Genome Med. 2017 Apr 19;9(1):34
pubmed: 28420421
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018 Aug;9(4):610-617
pubmed: 30151257
Int J Cancer. 2019 Feb 15;144(4):848-858
pubmed: 30238975
Int J Cancer. 2019 May 1;144(9):2303-2312
pubmed: 30446996
Cancer Immunol Res. 2016 Nov;4(11):959-967
pubmed: 27671167
J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Feb 29;:
pubmed: 32119917
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2093-2104
pubmed: 29658845
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;3(8):1051-1058
pubmed: 28278348
Science. 2018 Oct 12;362(6411):
pubmed: 30309915
Cancer Cell. 2018 May 14;33(5):843-852.e4
pubmed: 29657128
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;30(1):44-56
pubmed: 30395155
Cancer Cell. 2018 May 14;33(5):853-861.e4
pubmed: 29731394
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 22;376(25):2415-2426
pubmed: 28636851
Mol Cancer Ther. 2017 Nov;16(11):2598-2608
pubmed: 28835386
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):841-2
pubmed: 20110278
Science. 2017 Jul 28;357(6349):409-413
pubmed: 28596308
Nat Genet. 2019 Feb;51(2):202-206
pubmed: 30643254