Challenges in bioinformatics approaches to tumor mutation burden analysis

Challenges and Future Directions in the Management of Tumor Mutational Burden-High (TMB-H) Advanced Solid Malignancies

A standardized assessment of Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) poses challenges across diverse tumor histologies, treatment modalities, and testing platforms, requiring careful consideration to ensure consistency and reproducibility. Despite clinical trials demonstrating favorable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), not all patients with elevated TMB exhibit benefits, and certain tumors with a normal TMB may respond to ICIs. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the intricate interplay between TMB and the tumor microenvironment, as well as genomic features, is crucial to refine its predictive value. Bioinformatics advancements hold potential to improve the precision and cost-effectiveness of TMB assessments, addressing existing challenges. Similarly, integrating TMB with other biomarkers and employing comprehensive, multiomics approaches could further enhance its predictive value. Ongoing collaborative endeavors in research, standardization, and clinical validation are pivotal in harnessing the full potential of TMB as a biomarker in the clinic settings.

External quality assessment (EQA) for tumor mutational burden: results of an international IQN path feasibility pilot scheme

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has recently been approved as an agnostic biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, methods for TMB testing have not yet been standardized. The International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath) organized a pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for TMB testing. The aim of this program was the validation of the materials and the procedures for the EQA of this complex biomarker. Five formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell lines were selected to mimic the various TMB values observed in clinical practice. The FFPE samples were tested with the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) assay as the reference test and three commercially available targeted sequencing panels. Following this internal validation, the five cell lines were sent to 29 laboratories selected on the basis of a previous survey. Nineteen of the 23 laboratories that submitted results (82.6%) used targeted sequencing for TMB estimation. Only two laboratories performed whole exome sequencing (WES) and two assessed TMB by clinical exome. A high variability in the reported TMB values was observed. The variability was higher for samples with the highest TMB value according to the F1CDx test. However, good reproducibility of the TMB score was shown by laboratories using the same panel. The majority of laboratories did not indicate a TMB cut-off value for clinical interpretation. In conclusion, this pilot EQA scheme suggests that it is feasible to run such an EQA program for TMB assessment. However, the results of our pilot highlight the numerous challenges for the standardization of this test.

Bias and inconsistency in the estimation of tumour mutation burden

BACKGROUND

Tumour mutation burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase within the sequenced region in the tumour sample, has been used as a biomarker for predicting response to immune therapy. Several studies have been conducted to assess the utility of TMB for various cancer types; however, methods to measure TMB have not been adequately evaluated. In this study, we identified two sources of bias in current methods to calculate TMB.

METHODS

We used simulated data to quantify the two sources of bias and their effect on TMB calculation, we down-sampled sequencing reads from exome sequencing datasets from TCGA to evaluate the consistency in TMB estimation across different sequencing depths. We analyzed data from ten cancer cohorts to investigate the relationship between inferred TMB and sequencing depth.

RESULTS

We found that TMB, estimated by counting the number of somatic mutations above a threshold frequency (typically 0.05), is not robust to sequencing depth. Furthermore, we show that, because only mutations with an observed frequency greater than the threshold are considered, the observed mutant allele frequency provides a biased estimate of the true frequency. This can result in substantial over-estimation of the TMB, when the cancer sample includes a large number of somatic mutations at low frequencies, and exacerbates the lack of robustness of TMB to variation in sequencing depth and tumour purity.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that care needs to be taken in the estimation of TMB to ensure that results are unbiased and consistent across studies and we suggest that accurate and robust estimation of TMB could be achieved using statistical models that estimate the full mutant allele frequency spectrum.

Alignment of practices for data harmonization across multi-center cell therapy trials: a report from the Consortium for Pediatric Cellular Immunotherapy

Immune effector cell (IEC) therapies have revolutionized our approach to relapsed B-cell malignancies, and interest in the investigational use of IECs is rapidly expanding into other diseases. Current challenges in the analysis of IEC therapies include small sample sizes, limited access to clinical trials and a paucity of predictive biomarkers of efficacy and toxicity associated with IEC therapies. Retrospective and prospective multi-center cell therapy trials can assist in overcoming these barriers through harmonization of clinical endpoints and correlative assays for immune monitoring, allowing additional cross-trial analysis to identify biomarkers of failure and success. The Consortium for Pediatric Cellular Immunotherapy (CPCI) offers a unique platform to address the aforementioned challenges by delivering cutting-edge cell and gene therapies for children through multi-center clinical trials. Here the authors discuss some of the important pre-analytic variables, such as biospecimen collection and initial processing procedures, that affect biomarker assays commonly used in IEC trials across participating CPCI sites. The authors review the recent literature and provide data to support recommendations for alignment and standardization of practices that can affect flow cytometry assays measuring immune effector function as well as interpretation of cytokine/chemokine data. The authors also identify critical gaps that often make parallel comparisons between trials difficult or impossible.