Aviso: para depositar documentos, por favor, inicia sesión e identifícate con tu cuenta de correo institucional de la UCM con el botón MI CUENTA UCM. No emplees la opción AUTENTICACIÓN CON CONTRASEÑA
 

Tumor mutational burden assessment in non-small-cell lung cancer samples: results from the TMB2 harmonization project comparing three NGS panels

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Full text at PDC

Publication date

2021

Advisors (or tutors)

Editors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

BMJ Publishing Group
Citations
Google Scholar

Citation

Ramos-Paradas J, Hernández-Prieto S, Lora D, Sanchez E, Rosado A, Caniego-Casas T, Carrizo N, Enguita AB, Muñoz-Jimenez MT, Rodriguez B, Perez-Gonzalez U, Gómez-Sánchez D, Ferrer I, Ponce Aix S, Nuñez Buiza Á, Garrido P, Palacios J, Lopez-Rios F, Garrido-Martin EM, Paz-Ares L. Tumor mutational burden assessment in non-small-cell lung cancer samples: results from the TMB2 harmonization project comparing three NGS panels. J Immunother Cancer. 2021 May;9(5):e001904. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-001904.

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.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Description

Keywords

Collections