Advertisement

Measuring Tumor Mutational Burden Using Whole-Exome Sequencing

  • Tomas VilimasEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2055)

Abstract

Cancer immunotherapy, particularly a class of antibodies targeting the CTLA4 and PD-1/PD-L1 negative regulators of immune response (collectively called the immune checkpoint), is one of the most promising approaches for cancer treatment and the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated remarkable success in several types of cancer. In studies of unselected patient populations, it was shown that melanoma, non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma patients treated with CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors had an improved objective response and overall survival relative to chemotherapy or historical trends, and several ICIs have been approved for the treatment of these and other indications.

More recently, several groups found that response to ICI therapy strongly correlates with a high burden of single nucleotide variant (SNV) mutations in the tumor genome, termed tumor mutational burden (TMB), usually expressed as the number of nonsynonymous single nucleotide variants per megabase of sequenced genome. These studies showed that TMB is a promising predictive biomarker for ICI response in melanoma, urothelial carcinoma and a subset of NSCLC patients. High TMB relates to ICI response via the production of increased numbers of novel, mutant peptide antigens (neoantigens), resulting in enhanced recognition and killing of neoantigen-presenting tumor cells by cytotoxic CD8+ T cells.

In this chapter I describe the current best-practice methods for measuring TMB in tumor specimens using whole-exome sequencing (WES).

Key words

Tumor mutational burden Next-generation sequencing Whole-exome sequencing Immune checkpoint inhibitor Cancer immunotherapy biomarker Nonsynonymous mutations Neoantigens 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Chris Karlovich, Justine McCutcheon, Brandie Fullmer, Rajesh Patidar, Bishu Das, Li Chen, Mickey Williams, and Rasa Vilimas for their critical reviews, editorial assistance, and support with creating figures for the chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative, ICGC Breast Cancer Consortium, ICGC MMML-Seq Consortium et al (2013) Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature 500:415–421Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Polak P et al (2013) Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 499:214–218PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson DB, Frampton GM, Rioth MJ et al (2016) Targeted next generation sequencing identifies markers of response to PD-1 blockade. Cancer Immunol Res 4:959–967PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L et al (2015) Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 373:1627–1639PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R et al (2015) Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 372:2018–2028PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF et al (2015) Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 373:1803–1813PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al (2015) Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 372:320–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T et al (2016) Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet 387:1909–1920PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weber JS, D’Angelo SP, Minor D et al (2015) Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 16:375–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hargadon KM, Johnson CE, Williams CJ (2018) Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: an overview of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors. Int Immunopharmacol 62:29–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L et al (2017) First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 376:2415–2426PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A et al (2015) Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science 348:124–128PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Snyder A, Makarov V, Merghoub T et al (2014) Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med 371:2189–2199PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Allen EM, Miao D, Schilling B et al (2015) Genomic correlates of response to CTLA-4 blockade in metastatic melanoma. Science 350:207–211PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samstein RM, Lee C-H, Shoushtari AN et al (2019) Tumor mutational load predicts survival after immunotherapy across multiple cancer types. Nat Genet 51(2):202–206PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Rooij N, van Buuren MM, Philips D et al (2013) Tumor exome analysis reveals Neoantigen-specific T-cell reactivity in an ipilimumab-responsive melanoma. J Clin Oncol 31:e439–e442PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miao D, Margolis CA, Vokes NI et al (2018) Genomic correlates of response to immune checkpoint blockade in microsatellite-stable solid tumors. Nat Genet 50:1271–1281PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Exome Aggregation Consortium, Lek M, Karczewski KJ et al (2016) Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 536:285–291PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sherry ST (2001) dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res 29:308–311PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Gibbs RA, Boerwinkle E et al (2015) A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526:68–74PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chalmers ZR, Connelly CF, Fabrizio D et al (2017) Analysis of 100,000 human cancer genomes reveals the landscape of tumor mutational burden. Genome Med 9:34PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goodman AM, Kato S, Bazhenova L et al (2017) Tumor mutational burden as an independent predictor of response to immunotherapy in diverse cancers. Mol Cancer Ther 16:2598–2608PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzanski A et al (2018) Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med 378:2093–2104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zehir A, Benayed R, Shah RH et al (2017) Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat Med 23:703–713PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colli LM, Machiela MJ, Myers TA et al (2016) Burden of nonsynonymous mutations among TCGA cancers and candidate immune checkpoint inhibitor responses. Cancer Res 76:3767–3772PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGranahan N, Furness AJS, Rosenthal R et al (2016) Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade. Science 351(6280):1463–1469PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nagahashi M, Sato S, Yuza K et al (2018) Common driver mutations and smoking history affect tumor mutation burden in lung adenocarcinoma. J Surg Res 230:181–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vanderwalde A, Spetzler D, Xiao N et al (2018) Microsatellite instability status determined by next-generation sequencing and compared with PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden in 11,348 patients. Cancer Med 7:746–756PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Castellucci E, He T, Goldstein DY et al (2017) DNA polymerase ɛ deficiency leading to an ultramutator phenotype: a novel clinically relevant entity. Oncologist 22:497–502PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson A, Severson E, Gay L et al (2017) Comprehensive genomic profiling of 282 pediatric low- and high-grade Gliomas reveals genomic drivers, tumor mutational burden, and hypermutation signatures. Oncologist 22:1478–1490PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H et al (2015) PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 372:2509–2520PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim ST, Cristescu R, Bass AJ et al (2018) Comprehensive molecular characterization of clinical responses to PD-1 inhibition in metastatic gastric cancer. Nat Med 24:1449–1458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rizvi H, Sanchez-Vega F, La K et al (2018) Molecular determinants of response to anti–programmed cell death (PD)-1 and anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer profiled with targeted next-generation sequencing. J Clin Oncol 36:633–641PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Campesato LF, Barroso-Sousa R, Jimenez L et al (2015) Comprehensive cancer-gene panels can be used to estimate mutational load and predict clinical benefit to PD-1 blockade in clinical practice. Oncotarget 6(33):34221–34227PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sun JX, He Y, Sanford E et al (2018) A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal. PLoS Comput Biol 14:e1005965PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A et al (2009) The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cibulskis K, Lawrence MS, Carter SL et al (2013) Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat Biotechnol 31:213–219PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Saunders CT, Wong WSW, Swamy S et al (2012) Strelka: accurate somatic small-variant calling from sequenced tumor–normal sample pairs. Bioinformatics 28:1811–1817PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Salipante SJ, Scroggins SM, Hampel HL et al (2014) Microsatellite instability detection by next generation sequencing. Clin Chem 60:1192–1199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Warren RL, Choe G, Freeman DJ et al (2012) Derivation of HLA types from shotgun sequence datasets. Genome Med 4:95PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boegel S, Löwer M, Schäfer M et al (2012) HLA typing from RNA-Seq sequence reads. Genome Med 4:102PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Poplin R, Ruano-Rubio V, DePristo MA, et al (2018) Scaling accurate genetic variant discovery to tens of thousands of samples. bioRxiv 201178. https://doi.org/10.1101/201178.
  43. 43.
    WGS500 Consortium, Rimmer A, Phan H et al (2014) Integrating mapping-, assembly- and haplotype-based approaches for calling variants in clinical sequencing applications. Nat Genet 46:912–918PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prentice LM, Miller RR, Knaggs J et al (2018) Formalin fixation increases deamination mutation signature but should not lead to false positive mutations in clinical practice. PLoS One 13:e0196434PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spencer DH, Sehn JK, Abel HJ et al (2013) Comparison of clinical targeted next-generation sequence data from formalin-fixed and fresh-frozen tissue specimens. J Mol Diagn 15:623–633PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Carrick DM, Mehaffey MG, Sachs MC et al (2015) Robustness of next generation sequencing on older formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. PLoS One 10:e0127353PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Molecular Characterization LaboratoryFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc.FrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations