4.6 Article

In-House Implementation of Tumor Mutational Burden Testing to Predict Durable Clinical Benefit in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Melanoma Patients

Journal

CANCERS
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11091271

Keywords

tumor mutational burden; FoundationOne assay; Oncomine TML assay; lung cancer; melanoma; immunotherapy

Categories

Funding

  1. Bristol-Myer Squibb
  2. Canceropole PACA
  3. Ligue contre le cancer
  4. French government, through the UCAJEDI Investments in the Future project [ANR-15-IDEX-01]
  5. French government, through the LABEX SIGNALIFE [ANR-11-LABX-0028-01]
  6. French Association for Cancer Research (ARC) by the Canc'air Genexposomics grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as an important potential biomarker for prediction of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), notably in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its in-house assessment in routine clinical practice is currently challenging and validation is urgently needed. We have analyzed sixty NSCLC and thirty-six melanoma patients with ICI treatment, using the FoundationOne test (FO) in addition to in-house testing using the Oncomine TML (OTML) panel and evaluated the durable clinical benefit (DCB), defined by >6 months without progressive disease. Comparison of TMB values obtained by both tests demonstrated a high correlation in NSCLC (R-2 = 0.73) and melanoma (R-2 = 0.94). The association of TMB with DCB was comparable between OTML (area-under the curve (AUC) = 0.67) and FO (AUC = 0.71) in NSCLC. Median TMB was higher in the DCB cohort and progression-free survival (PFS) was prolonged in patients with high TMB (OTML HR = 0.35; FO HR = 0.45). In contrast, we detected no differences in PFS and median TMB in our melanoma cohort. Combining TMB with PD-L1 and CD8-expression by immunohistochemistry improved the predictive value. We conclude that in our cohort both approaches are equally able to assess TMB and to predict DCB in NSCLC.

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