BackgroundTumor 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.MethodsEleven 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.ResultsStudy 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.ConclusionsIncreasing 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.

The Lung Master Protocol (Lung-MAP, S1400) is a groundbreaking clinical trial designed to advance the efficient development of targeted therapies for squamous cell cancer (SCCA) of the lung. There are no approved targeted therapies specific to advanced lung SCCA, although The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project and similar studies have detected a significant number of somatic gene mutations/amplifications in lung SCCA, some of which are targetable by investigational agents. However, the frequency of these changes is low (5–20%), making recruitment and study conduct challenging in the traditional clinical trial setting. Here we describe our approach to development of a biomarker-driven phase 2/3 multi-substudy “Master Protocol,” employing a common platform (Next Generation DNA Sequencing) to identify actionable molecular abnormalities, followed by randomization to the relevant targeted therapy versus standard of care.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

PURPOSE This pilot study examined the ability to operationalize the collection of real-world data to explore the potential use of real-world end points extracted from data from diverse health care data organizations and to assess how these relate to similar end points in clinical trials for immunotherapy-treated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Researchers from six organizations followed a common protocol using data from administrative claims and electronic health records to assess real-world end points, including overall survival (rwOS), time to next treatment, time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), time to progression, and progression-free survival, among patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer treated with programmed death 1/programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in real-world settings. Data sets included from 269 to 6,924 patients who were treated between January 2011 and October 2017. Results from contributors were anonymized. RESULTS Correlations between real-world intermediate end points (rwTTD and time to next treatment) and rwOS were moderate to high (range, 0.6 to 0.9). rwTTD was the most consistent end points as treatment detail was available in all data sets. rwOS at 1 year post–programmed death-ligand 1 initiation ranged from 40% to 57%. In addition, rwOS as assessed via electronic health records and claims data fell within the range of median OS values observed in relevant clinical trials. Data sources had been used extensively for research with ongoing data curation to assure accuracy and practical completeness before the initiation of this research. CONCLUSION These findings demonstrate that real-world end points are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision making. Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.

CAM use is as common among patients visiting liver disease clinics in the United States as in the general population (39% vs 42%). Many patients are using herbs to treat their liver disease but are declining to discuss this use with their physician.