Tumor mutational burden assessment in non-small-cell lung cancer samples: results from the TMB2 harmonization project comparing three NGS panels. Issue 5 (7th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ramos-Paradas, Javier; Hernández-Prieto, Susana; Lora, David; Sanchez, Elena; Rosado, Aranzazu; Caniego-Casas, Tamara; Carrizo, Nuria; Enguita, Ana Belén; Muñoz-Jimenez, María Teresa; Rodriguez, Borja; Perez-Gonzalez, Urbicio; Gómez-Sánchez, David; Ferrer, Irene; Ponce Aix, Santiago; Nuñez Buiza, Ángel; Garrido, Pilar; Palacios, José; Lopez-Rios, Fernando; Garrido-Martin, Eva M; Paz-Ares, Luis
• Is Part Of: Journal for immunotherapy of cancer. Volume 9:Issue 5(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-05-07
• Subjects: immunotherapy -- lung neoplasms -- tumor biomarkers -- translational medical research -- B7-H1 antigen; Cancer -- Immunotherapy -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Immunological aspects -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Immunological aspects -- Periodicals; Immunotherapy -- Periodicals; 616.99406105
• DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2020-001904
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2051-1426

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Tumor 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Both 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. Conclusions: Both 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.