Graph-ETMB: A graph neural network-based model for tumour mutation burden estimation

As a critical indicator of how easily the human immune system recognizes tumour cells, tumour mutational burden (TMB) is widely used to identify the potential effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. However, the difficulties associated with the whole exome sequencing (WES) process, such as high tissue sampling requirements, high costs, and long turnaround times, have hindered the widespread clinical use of WES. Furthermore, the mutation landscape varies across cancer types, and the distribution of TMBs varies across cancer subtypes. Therefore, there is an urgent clinical need to develop a small cancer-specific panel to estimate TMB accurately, predict immunotherapy response cost-effectively and assist physicians in precise decision-making. This paper uses a graph neural network framework (Graph-ETMB) to address the cancer specificity problem in TMB. The correlation and tractability between mutated genes are described through message-passing and aggregation algorithms between graph networks. Then the graph neural network is trained in the lung adenocarcinoma data through a semi-supervised approach, resulting in a mutation panel containing 20 genes with a length of only 0.16 Mb. The number of genes to be detected is smaller than most commercial panels currently in clinical use. In addition, the efficacy of the designed panel in predicting immunotherapy response was further determined in an independent validation dataset, exploring the association between TMB and immunotherapy efficacy.

Gene Expression Scoring of Immune Activity Levels for Precision Use of Hydrocortisone in Vasodilatory Shock

PURPOSE

Among patients with vasodilatory shock, gene expression scores may identify different immune states. We aimed to test whether such scores are robust in identifying patients' immune state and predicting response to hydrocortisone treatment in vasodilatory shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We selected genes to generate continuous scores to define previously established subclasses of sepsis. We used these scores to identify a patient's immune state. We evaluated the potential for these states to assess the differential effect of hydrocortisone in two randomized clinical trials of hydrocortisone versus placebo in vasodilatory shock.

RESULTS

We initially identified genes associated with immune-adaptive, immune-innate, immune-coagulant functions. From these genes, 15 were most relevant to generate expression scores related to each of the functions. These scores were used to identify patients as immune-adaptive prevalent (IA-P) and immune-innate prevalent (IN-P). In IA-P patients, hydrocortisone therapy increased 28-day mortality in both trials (43.3% vs 14.7%, P = 0.028) and (57.1% vs 0.0%, P = 0.99). In IN-P patients, this effect was numerically reversed.

CONCLUSIONS

Gene expression scores identified the immune state of vasodilatory shock patients, one of which (IA-P) identified those who may be harmed by hydrocortisone. Gene expression scores may help advance the field of personalized medicine.

Aligning tumor mutational burden (TMB) quantification across diagnostic platforms: phase II of the Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project

BACKGROUND

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) measurements aid in identifying patients who are likely to benefit from immunotherapy; however, there is empirical variability across panel assays and factors contributing to this variability have not been comprehensively investigated. Identifying sources of variability can help facilitate comparability across different panel assays, which may aid in broader adoption of panel assays and development of clinical applications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine tumor samples and 10 human-derived cell lines were processed and distributed to 16 laboratories; each used their own bioinformatics pipelines to calculate TMB and compare to whole exome results. Additionally, theoretical positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of TMB were estimated. The impact of filtering pathogenic and germline variants on TMB estimates was assessed. Calibration curves specific to each panel assay were developed to facilitate translation of panel TMB values to whole exome sequencing (WES) TMB values.

RESULTS

Panel sizes >667 Kb are necessary to maintain adequate PPA and NPA for calling TMB high versus TMB low across the range of cut-offs used in practice. Failure to filter out pathogenic variants when estimating panel TMB resulted in overestimating TMB relative to WES for all assays. Filtering out potential germline variants at >0% population minor allele frequency resulted in the strongest correlation to WES TMB. Application of a calibration approach derived from The Cancer Genome Atlas data, tailored to each panel assay, reduced the spread of panel TMB values around the WES TMB as reflected in lower root mean squared error (RMSE) for 26/29 (90%) of the clinical samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimation of TMB varies across different panels, with panel size, gene content, and bioinformatics pipelines contributing to empirical variability. Statistical calibration can achieve more consistent results across panels and allows for comparison of TMB values across various panel assays. To promote reproducibility and comparability across assays, a software tool was developed and made publicly available.

Tumor Mutational Burden as a Predictive Biomarker in Solid Tumors

Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of interrogated genomic sequence, varies across malignancies. Panel sequencing-based estimates of TMB have largely replaced whole-exome sequencing-derived TMB in the clinic. Retrospective evidence suggests that TMB can predict the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and data from KEYNOTE-158 led to the recent FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the TMB-high tumor subgroup. Unmet needs include prospective validation of TMB cutoffs in relationship to tumor type and patient outcomes. Furthermore, standardization and harmonization of TMB measurement across test platforms are important to the successful implementation of TMB in clinical practice. SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluation of TMB as a predictive biomarker creates the need to harmonize panel-based TMB estimation and standardize its reporting. TMB can improve the predictive accuracy for immunotherapy outcomes, and has the potential to expand the candidate pool of patients for treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Establishing guidelines to harmonize tumor mutational burden (TMB): in silico assessment of variation in TMB quantification across diagnostic platforms: phase I of the Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project

BACKGROUND

Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of interrogated genomic sequence, demonstrates predictive biomarker potential for the identification of patients with cancer most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. TMB is optimally calculated by whole exome sequencing (WES), but next-generation sequencing targeted panels provide TMB estimates in a time-effective and cost-effective manner. However, differences in panel size and gene coverage, in addition to the underlying bioinformatics pipelines, are known drivers of variability in TMB estimates across laboratories. By directly comparing panel-based TMB estimates from participating laboratories, this study aims to characterize the theoretical variability of panel-based TMB estimates, and provides guidelines on TMB reporting, analytic validation requirements and reference standard alignment in order to maintain consistency of TMB estimation across platforms.

METHODS

Eleven laboratories used WES data from The Cancer Genome Atlas Multi-Center Mutation calling in Multiple Cancers (MC3) samples and calculated TMB from the subset of the exome restricted to the genes covered by their targeted panel using their own bioinformatics pipeline (panel TMB). A reference TMB value was calculated from the entire exome using a uniform bioinformatics pipeline all members agreed on (WES TMB). Linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between WES and panel TMB for all 32 cancer types combined and separately. Variability in panel TMB values at various WES TMB values was also quantified using 95% prediction limits.

RESULTS

Study results demonstrated that variability within and between panel TMB values increases as the WES TMB values increase. For each panel, prediction limits based on linear regression analyses that modeled panel TMB as a function of WES TMB were calculated and found to approximately capture the intended 95% of observed panel TMB values. Certain cancer types, such as uterine, bladder and colon cancers exhibited greater variability in panel TMB values, compared with lung and head and neck cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing uptake of TMB as a predictive biomarker in the clinic creates an urgent need to bring stakeholders together to agree on the harmonization of key aspects of panel-based TMB estimation, such as the standardization of TMB reporting, standardization of analytical validation studies and the alignment of panel-based TMB values with a reference standard. These harmonization efforts should improve consistency and reliability of panel TMB estimates and aid in clinical decision-making.