Biological and technical factors in the assessment of blood-based tumor mutational burden (bTMB) in patients with NSCLC. Issue 2 (25th February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schuurbiers, Milou; Huang, Zhongyun; Saelee, Senglor; Javey, Manana; de Visser, Leonie; van den Broek, Daan; Monkhorst, Kim; Heuvel, Michel van den; Lovejoy, Alexander F; Klass, Daniel
• Is Part Of: Journal for immunotherapy of cancer. Volume 10:Issue 2(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-02-25
• Subjects: lung neoplasms -- tumor biomarkers -- genetic markers -- immunotherapy; Cancer -- Immunotherapy -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Immunological aspects -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Immunological aspects -- Periodicals; Immunotherapy -- Periodicals; 616.99406105
• DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-004064
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2051-1426

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Patients treated with immunotherapy are at risk of considerable adverse events, and the ongoing struggle is to accurately identify the subset of patients who will benefit. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a promising predictive biomarker but requires tumor tissue which is not always available. Blood-based TMB (bTMB) may provide a minimally invasive assessment of mutational load. However, because of the required sequencing depth, bTMB analysis is costly and prone to false negative results. This study attempted to design a minimally sized bTMB panel, examined a counting-based method for bTMB in patients with stage I to IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and evaluated both technical factors such as bTMB and tissue-based TMB (tTMB) cut-off, as well as sample-related factors such as cell-free DNA input mass which influence the correlation between bTMB and tTMB. Methods: Tissue, plasma, and whole blood samples collected as part of the LEMA trial (NCT02894853 ) were used in this study. Samples of 185 treatment naïve patients with stage I to IV NSCLC were sequenced at the Roche Sequencing Solutions with a custom panel designed for TMB, using reagents and workflows derived from the AVENIO Tumor Tissue and circulating tumor DNA Analysis Kits. Results: A TMB panel of 1.1 Mb demonstrated highly accurate TMB high calls with a positive predictive value of 95% when using a tTMB cut-off of 16 mut/Mb, corresponding with 42 mut/Mb for bTMB. The positive per cent agreement (PPA) of bTMB was relatively low at 32%. In stage IV samples with at least 20 ng of cfDNA input, PPA of bTMB improved to 63% and minimizing the panel to a subset of 577 kb was possible while maintaining 63% PPA. Conclusion: Plasma samples with high bTMB values are highly correspondent with tTMB, whereas bTMB low results may also be the result of low tumor burden at earlier stages of disease as well as poorly shedding tumors. For advanced stages of disease, PPA (sensitivity) of bTMB is satisfactory in comparison to tTMB, even when using a panel of less than 600 kb, warranting consideration of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for patients with NSCLC eligible for immunotherapy in the future.