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

期刊

CANCERS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11091271

关键词

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

类别

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据