Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,032

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High tumor mutation burden fails to predict immune checkpoint blockade response across all cancer types

Open access
McGrail, D.J., Pilié, P.G., Rashid, N.U., Voorwerk, L., Slagter, M., Kok, M., Jonasch, E., Khasraw, M., Heimberger, A.B., Lim, B., Ueno, N.T., Litton, J.K., Ferrarotto, R., Chang, J.T., Moulder, S.L., Lin, S.-Y.·2021·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

Background High tumor mutation burden (TMB-H) has been proposed as a predictive biomarker for response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), largely due to the potential for tumor mutations to generate immunogenic neoantigens. Despite recent pan-cancer approval of ICB treatment for any TMB-H tumor, as assessed by the targeted FoundationOne CDx assay in nine tumor types, the utility of this biomarker has not been fully demonstrated across all cancers. Patients and methods Data from over 10 000 patient tumors included in The Cancer Genome Atlas were used to compare approaches to determine TMB and identify the correlation between predicted neoantigen load and CD8 T cells. Association of TMB with ICB treatment outcomes was analyzed by both objective response rates (ORRs, N = 1551) and overall survival (OS, N = 1936). Results In cancer types where CD8 T-cell levels positively correlated with neoantigen load, such as melanoma, lung, and bladder cancers, TMB-H tumors exhibited a 39.8% ORR to ICB [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.9-44.8], which was significantly higher than that observed in low TMB (TMB-L) tumors [odds ratio (OR) = 4.1, 95% CI 2.9-5.8, P < 2 × 10 −16 ]. In cancer types that showed no relationship between CD8 T-cell levels and neoantigen load, such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, and glioma, TMB-H tumors failed to achieve a 20% ORR (ORR = 15.3%, 95% CI 9.2-23.4, P = 0.95), and exhibited a significantly lower ORR relative to TMB-L tumors (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88, P = 0.02). Bulk ORRs were not significantly different between the two categories of tumors ( P = 0.10) for patient cohorts assessed. Equivalent results were obtained by analyzing OS and by treating TMB as a continuous variable. Conclusions Our analysis failed to support application of TMB-H as a biomarker for treatment with ICB in all solid cancer types. Further tumor type-specific studies are warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.02.006

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 1,032

Metadata

Authors
McGrail, D. J., Pilié, P. G., Rashid, N. U., Voorwerk, L., Slagter, M., Kok, M., Jonasch, E., Khasraw, M., Heimberger, A. B., Lim, B., Ueno, N. T., Litton, J. K., Ferrarotto, R., Chang, J. T., Moulder, S. L., & Lin, S.-Y.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
661-672
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3136653115
Cited by
1,032
References
18
FWCI
64.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High tumor mutation burden fails to predict immune checkpoint blockade response across all cancer types. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.02.006
The paper
McGrail, D. J., Pilié, P. G., Rashid, N. U., Voorwerk, L., Slagter, M., Kok, M., Jonasch, E., Khasraw, M., Heimberger, A. B., Lim, B., Ueno, N. T., Litton, J. K., Ferrarotto, R., Chang, J. T., Moulder, S. L., & Lin, S.-Y. (2021). High tumor mutation burden fails to predict immune checkpoint blockade response across all cancer types. Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.02.006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.