Tumor mutational burden measurement using comprehensive genomic profiling assay. (27th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kage, Hidenori; Kohsaka, Shinji; Tatsuno, Kenji; Ueno, Toshihide; Ikegami, Masachika; Zokumasu, Koichi; Shinozaki-Ushiku, Aya; Nagai, Sumimasa; Aburatani, Hiroyuki; Mano, Hiroyuki; Oda, Katsutoshi
• Is Part Of: Japanese journal of clinical oncology. Volume 52:Number 8(2022)
• Page Start: 917
• Page End: 921
• Publication Date: 2022-04-27
• Subjects: cancer gene -- genomics -- immune checkpoint inhibitors -- mutation -- tumor mutational burden; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyac063
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0368-2811

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Tumors with a high number of mutations in the genome, or tumor mutational burden, are presumed to be more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the optimal method to calculate tumor mutational burden using comprehensive genomic profiling assays is unknown. Methods: Todai OncoPanel is a dual panel of a deoxyribonucleic acid panel and a ribonucleic acid panel. Todai OncoPanel deoxyribonucleic acid panel version 6 is an improvement over version 3 with increased number of targeted genes and limited targeting of intronic regions. We calculated tumor mutational burden measured by Todai OncoPanel deoxyribonucleic acid panel versions 3 and 6 using three different calculation methods: all mutations within the targeted region (target tumor mutational burden), all mutations within the coding region (all coding tumor mutational burden) and non-synonymous mutations (non-synonymous coding tumor mutational burden). We then compared them with whole exosome sequencing tumor mutational burden. In addition, 16 lung cancer patients whose samples were analyzed using Todai OncoPanel deoxyribonucleic acid version 3 were treated with anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 antibody monotherapy. Results: When compared with whole exosome sequencing tumor mutational burden as the standard, tumor mutational burden measured by Todai OncoPanel deoxyribonucleic acid version 3 resulted in accuracy of 71% for all three calculation methods. In version 6, accuracy was 96% for target tumor mutational burden and all coding tumor mutational burden and 91% for non-synonymous coding tumor mutational burden. Patients with either partial response or stable disease had higher non-synonymous coding tumor mutational burden (6.7/Mb vs. 1.6/Mb, P = 0.02) and higher PD-L1 expression (40% vs. 3%, P = 0.01) and a trend toward higher target tumor mutational burden (9.2/Mb vs. 2.4/Mb, P = 0.09) compared with patients with progressive disease. Conclusions: Increase in targeted gene number and limiting intronic regions improved tumor mutational burden measurement by Todai OncoPanel when compared with whole exosome sequencing tumor mutational burden. Target tumor mutational burden may be the method of choice to measure tumor mutational burden. Abstract : Increase in targeted gene number and limiting intronic regions improved tumor mutational burden measurement by Todai OncoPanel when compared with whole exosome sequencing tumor mutational burden. Target tumor mutational burden may be the method of choice to measure tumor mutational burden.