Cargando…

Pan-cancer Analysis of Tumor Mutational Burden and Homologous Recombination DNA Damage Repair Using Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing

PURPOSE: Current variability in methods for tumor mutational burden (TMB) estimation and reporting demonstrates the urgent need for a homogeneous TMB assessment approach. Here, we compared TMB distributions in different cancer types using two customized targeted panels commonly used in clinical prac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Hai-Yun, Deng, Ling, Li, Ying-Qing, Zhang, Xiao, Long, Ya-Kang, Zhang, Xu, Feng, Yan-Fen, He, Yuan, Tang, Tao, Yang, Xin-Hua, Wang, Fang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Cancer Association 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8524032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33677848
http://dx.doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.798
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Current variability in methods for tumor mutational burden (TMB) estimation and reporting demonstrates the urgent need for a homogeneous TMB assessment approach. Here, we compared TMB distributions in different cancer types using two customized targeted panels commonly used in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TMB spectra of 295- and 1021-gene panels in multiple cancer types were compared using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). The TMB distributions across a diverse cohort of 2,332 cancer cases were then investigated for their associations with clinical features. Treatment response data were collected for 222 patients who received immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their homologous recombination DNA damage repair (HR-DDR) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression were additionally assessed and compared with the TMB and response rate. RESULTS: The median TMB between gene panels was similar despite a wide range in TMB values. The highest TMB was eight and 10 in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal carcinoma according to the classification of histopathology and cancer types, respectively. Twenty-three out of 103 patients (22.3%) were HR-DDR–positive and could benefit from ICI therapy; out of those 23 patients, seven patients had high TMB (p=0.004). Additionally, PD-L1 expression was not associated with TMB or treatment response among patients receiving ICIs. CONCLUSION: Targeted NGS assays demonstrated the ability to evaluate TMB in pan-cancer samples as a tool to predict response to ICIs. In addition, TMB integrated with HR-DDR–positive status could be a significant biomarker for predicting ICI response in patients.