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
  • [41] Addition of Germline Testing to Tumor-Only Sequencing Improves Detection of Pathogenic Germline Variants in Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer
    Berchuck, Jacob E.
    Boiarsky, Daniel
    Silver, Rebecca
    Sunkara, Rajitha
    McClure, Heather M.
    Tsai, Harrison K.
    Siegmund, Stephanie
    Tewari, Alok K.
    Nowak, Jonathan A.
    Lindeman, Neal I.
    Rana, Huma Q.
    Choudhury, Atish D.
    Pomerantz, Mark M.
    Freedman, Matthew L.
    Van Allen, Eliezer M.
    Taplin, Mary-Ellen
    JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY, 2022, 6
  • [42] Clinical Quality in Cancer Research: Strategy to Assess Data Integrity of Germline Variants Inferred from Tumor-Only Testing Sequencing Data
    Menard, Timothe
    Rolo, Donato
    Koneswarakantha, Bjorn
    PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 35 (04) : 225 - 233
  • [43] Clinical Quality in Cancer Research: Strategy to Assess Data Integrity of Germline Variants Inferred from Tumor-Only Testing Sequencing Data
    Timothé Ménard
    Donato Rolo
    Björn Koneswarakantha
    Pharmaceutical Medicine, 2021, 35 : 225 - 233
  • [44] Robust assessment of tumor mutational burden in cytological specimens from lung cancer patients
    Alborelli, Ilaria
    Hench, Ivana Bratic
    Chijioke, Obinna
    Prince, Spasenija Savic
    Bubendorf, Lukas
    Leuenberger, Laura P.
    Tolnay, Markus
    Leonards, Katharina
    Quagliata, Luca
    Jermann, Philip
    Matter, Matthias S.
    LUNG CANCER, 2020, 149 : 84 - 89
  • [45] UNMASC: tumor-only variant calling with unmatched normal controls
    Little, Paul
    Jo, Heejoon
    Hoyle, Alan
    Mazul, Angela
    Zhao, Xiaobei
    Salazar, Ashley H.
    Farquhar, Douglas
    Sheth, Siddharth
    Masood, Maheer
    Hayward, Michele C.
    Parker, Joel S.
    Hoadley, Katherine A.
    Zevallos, Jose
    Hayes, D. Neil
    NAR CANCER, 2021, 3 (04):
  • [46] TSomVar: a tumor-only somatic and germline variant identification method with random forest
    Shi, Shuo
    Wang, Qi
    Shang, Yunfei
    Bu, Congfan
    Lu, Mingming
    Jiang, Meiye
    Zhang, Hao
    Yu, Shuhuan
    Zeng, Jingyao
    Zhang, Zaichao
    Du, Zhenglin
    Xiao, Jingfa
    BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS, 2022, 23 (05)
  • [47] Concordance of Targeted Sequencing from Circulating Tumor DNA and Paired Tumor Tissue
    Huang, Chi-Cheng
    Tseng, Ling-Ming
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 83 (05)
  • [48] Confirmatory germline testing for presumed germline pathogenic variants using tumor-only testing.
    Kondo, Tomohiro
    Yamada, Takahiro
    Yoshioka, Masahiro
    Nishigaki, Masakazu
    Yamamoto, Yoshihiro
    Kou, Tadayuki
    Matsubara, Junichi
    Kanai, Masashi
    Matsumoto, Shigemi
    Muto, Manabu
    Kosugi, Shinji
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 39 (15)
  • [49] Impact of Tumor Percentage on Tumor Mutational Burden and Microsatellite Instability Measurements from a Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Sequencing Panel
    Hampel, K.
    Mahoney, B.
    Lebeau, M.
    Gerrard, D.
    Ostafin, A.
    Cameron, M.
    Sidiropoulos, N.
    JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 25 (11): : S122 - S122
  • [50] Potential burden of germline findings in targeted tumor sequencing using matched normal DNA
    Schrader, Kasmintan A.
    Cheng, Donavan T.
    Vijai, Joseph
    Prasad, Meera
    Walsh, Michael F.
    Zehir, Ahmet
    Thomas, Tinu
    Zhang, Liying
    Ladanyi, Marc
    Offit, Kenneth
    Berger, Michael F.
    Robson, Mark E.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2015, 75