Tumor Mutational Burden From Tumor-Only Sequencing Compared With Germline Subtraction From Paired Tumor and Normal Specimens

被引:32
|
作者
Parikh, Kaushal [1 ,2 ]
Huether, Robert [3 ]
White, Kevin [3 ]
Hoskinson, Derick [3 ]
Beaubier, Nike [3 ]
Dong, Haidong [4 ]
Adjei, Alex A. [1 ]
Mansfield, Aaron S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Div Med Oncol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] John Theurer Canc Ctr, Div Med Oncol, Hackensack, NJ USA
[3] Tempus Labs, Chicago, IL USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Dept Urol, Dept Immunol, Rochester, MN USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0202
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
This cohort study investigates whether tumor-only filtering approaches overestimate tumor mutation burden. Importance Tumor mutation burden (TMB) is an emerging factor associated with survival with immunotherapy. When tumor-normal pairs are available, TMB is determined by calculating the difference between somatic and germline sequences. In the case of commonly used tumor-only sequencing, additional steps are needed to estimate the somatic alterations. Computational tools have been developed to determine germline contribution based on sample copy state, purity estimates, and occurrence of the variant in population databases; however, there is potential for sampling bias in population data sets. Objective To investigate whether tumor-only filtering approaches overestimate TMB. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective cohort study of 50 tumor samples from 10 different tumor types. A 595-gene panel test was used to assess TMB by adding all missense, indels, and frameshift variants with an allelic fraction of at least 5% and coverage of at least 100x within each tumor. Tumor-only TMB was evaluated against the criterion standard of matched germline-subtracted TMB at 3 levels. Level 1 removed all the tumor-only variants with allelic fraction of at least 1% in the Exome Aggregation Consortium database (with the Cancer Genome Atlas cohort removed). Level 2 removed all variants observed in population databases, simulating a naive approach of removing germline variation. Level 3 used an internal tumor-only pipeline for calculating TMB. These specimens were processed with a commercially available panel, and results were analyzed at the Mayo Clinic. Data were analyzed between December 1, 2018, and May 28, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Tumor mutation burden per megabase (Mb) as determined by 3 levels of filtering and germline subtraction. Results There were significantly higher estimates of TMB with level 1 (median [range] mutations per Mb, 28.8 [17.5-67.1]), level 2 (median [range] mutations per Mb, 20.8 [10.4-30.8]), and level 3 (median [range] mutations per Mb, 3.8 [0.8-12.1]) tumor-only filtering approaches than those determined by germline subtraction (median [range] mutations per Mb, 1.7 [0.4-9.2]). There were no strong associations between TMB estimates and tumor-germline TMB for level 1 filtering (r = 0.008; 95% CI, -0.004 to 0.020), level 2 filtering (r = 0.018; 95% CI, 0.003 to 0.033), or level 3 filtering (r = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.68). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this study indicate that tumor-only approaches that filter variants in population databases can overestimate TMB compared with germline subtraction methods. Despite improved association with more stringent filtering approaches, these falsely elevated estimates may result in the inappropriate categorization of tumor specimens and negatively affect clinical trial results and patient outcomes. Question Are filtering approaches an appropriate alternative to germline mutation subtraction for calculating tumor mutational burden (TMB)? Findings In this cohort study of 50 tumor samples comparing TMB calculated using 3 filtering approaches with germline-subtracted TMB, no strong association was found between TMB calculated using any filtering method and germline-subtracted TMB. Meaning These findings suggest that tumor-only methods of calculation may falsely overestimate TMB, potentially affecting patient care and treatment outcomes adversely; germline subtraction may more accurately measure TMB.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Inferences of Mutational Status for Variants Detected From Tumor-Only Sequencing-A Quality Assurance Strategy
    Menard, Timothe
    JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY, 2022, 6
  • [22] Germline sequencing for presumed germline pathogenic variants via tumor-only comprehensive genomic profiling
    Tomohiro Kondo
    Yoshihiro Yamamoto
    Keita Fukuyama
    Masashi Kanai
    Atsushi Yamada
    Junichi Matsubara
    Pham Nguyen Quy
    Masahiro Yoshioka
    Takahiro Yamada
    Sachiko Minamiguchi
    Shigemi Matsumoto
    Shinji Kosugi
    Manabu Muto
    International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2022, 27 : 1256 - 1263
  • [23] Tumor-Only Sequencing: A Story Only Half Told
    Ceyhan-Birsoy, Ozge
    Stadler, Zsofia K.
    JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY, 2024, 8
  • [24] Accurate measurement of tumor mutation burden through tumor-only sequencing using a 500-gene panel
    So, Alex Steven
    Kaplan, Shannon
    Zhao, Chen
    Zhang, Shile
    Liu, Li
    Le, Phillip
    Vijayaraghavan, Raakhee
    Jiang, Tingting
    Bilke, Sven
    Pawlowski, Traci
    Gutekunst, Karen
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 78 (13)
  • [25] Accurate measurement of tumor mutation burden through tumor-only sequencing using a 500-gene panel
    Thomas, Elizabeth
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 14 : 152 - 152
  • [26] Presumed Germline Pathogenic Variants in Tumor-Only Sequencing: Frequency and Follow-Up
    Toledo, D.
    Berg, S.
    Tsongalis, G.
    Lefferts, J.
    Tafe, L.
    JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2020, 22 (11): : S4 - S4
  • [27] Importance of presumed germline pathogenic variants and genetic support after tumor-only sequencing
    Kawamura, Miyuki
    Matsumoto, Koji
    Morita, Mitsunori
    Sakai, Hideki
    Onoe, Takuma
    Urakawa, Yusaku
    Sugawara, Hiromi
    Ueno, Sayaka
    Sudo, Tamotsu
    CANCER SCIENCE, 2022, 113
  • [28] Management of patients with presumed germline pathogenic variant from tumor-only genomic sequencing: A retrospective analysis at a single facility
    Maako Kawamura
    Hidekazu Shirota
    Tetsuya Niihori
    Keigo Komine
    Masanobu Takahashi
    Shin Takahashi
    Eisaku Miyauchi
    Hidetaka Niizuma
    Atsuo Kikuchi
    Hiroshi Tada
    Muneaki Shimada
    Naoki Kawamorita
    Masayuki Kanamori
    Ikuko Sugiyama
    Mari Tsubata
    Hitotshi Ichikawa
    Jun Yasuda
    Toru Furukawa
    Yoko Aoki
    Chikashi Ishioka
    Journal of Human Genetics, 2023, 68 : 399 - 408
  • [29] Management of patients with presumed germline pathogenic variant from tumor-only genomic sequencing: A retrospective analysis at a single facility
    Kawamura, Maako
    Shirota, Hidekazu
    Niihori, Tetsuya
    Komine, Keigo
    Takahashi, Masanobu
    Takahashi, Shin
    Miyauchi, Eisaku
    Niizuma, Hidetaka
    Kikuchi, Atsuo
    Tada, Hiroshi
    Shimada, Muneaki
    Kawamorita, Naoki
    Kanamori, Masayuki
    Sugiyama, Ikuko
    Tsubata, Mari
    Ichikawa, Hitotshi
    Yasuda, Jun
    Furukawa, Toru
    Aoki, Yoko
    Ishioka, Chikashi
    JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2023, 68 (06) : 399 - 408
  • [30] Gene-based Confirmatory Germline Testing Following Tumor-only Sequencing of Prostate Cancer
    Truong, Hong
    Breen, Kelsey
    Nandakumar, Subhiksha
    Sjoberg, Daniel D.
    Kemel, Yelena
    Mehta, Nikita
    Lenis, Andrew T.
    Reisz, Peter A.
    Carruthers, Jessica
    Benfante, Nicole
    Joseph, Vijai
    Khurram, Aliya
    Gopalan, Anuradha
    Fine, Samson W.
    Reuter, Victor E.
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Birsoy, Ozge
    Liu, Ying
    Walsh, Michael
    Latham, Alicia
    Stadler, Zsofia K.
    Pietzak, Eugene
    Ehdaie, Behfar
    Touijer, Karim A.
    Laudone, Vincent P.
    Slovin, Susan F.
    Autio, Karen A.
    Danila, Daniel C.
    Rathkopf, Dana E.
    Eastham, James A.
    Chen, Yu
    Morris, Michael J.
    Offit, Kenneth
    Solit, David B.
    Scher, Howard I.
    Abida, Wassim
    Robson, Mark E.
    Carlo, Maria I.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2023, 83 (01) : 29 - 38