4.6 Article

The neoepitope landscape of breast cancer: implications for immunotherapy

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5402-1

Keywords

Breast cancer; Neoepitope prediction; Mutation burden; Immunotherapy; TNBC; Epitopes

Categories

Funding

  1. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  2. School of Life Sciences
  3. Biodesign Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundCancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade (CKB) is now standard of care for multiple cancers. The clinical response to CKB is associated with T cell immunity targeting cancer-induced mutations that generate novel HLA-binding epitopes (neoepitopes).MethodsHere, we developed a rapid bioinformatics pipeline and filtering strategy, EpitopeHunter, to identify and prioritize clinically relevant neoepitopes from the landscape of somatic mutations. We used the pipeline to determine the frequency of neoepitopes from the TCGA dataset of invasive breast cancers. We predicted HLA class I-binding neoepitopes for 870 breast cancer samples and filtered the neoepitopes based on tumor transcript abundance.ResultsWe found that the total mutational burden (TMB) was highest for triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC, (median=63 mutations, range: 2-765); followed by HER-2(+) (median=39 mutations, range: 1-1206); and lowest for ER/PR(+)HER-2(-) (median=32 mutations, range: 1-2860). 40% of the nonsynonymous mutations led to the generation of predicted neoepitopes. The neoepitope load (NEL) is highly correlated with the mutational burden (R-2=0.86).ConclusionsOnly half (51%) of the predicted neoepitopes are expressed at the RNA level (FPKM2), indicating the importance of assessing whether neoepitopes are transcribed. However, of all patients, 93% have at least one expressed predicted neoepitope, indicating that most breast cancer patients have the potential for neo-epitope targeted immunotherapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available