ArticleBMC cancer2022
Bias and inconsistency in the estimation of tumour mutation burden.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and biomarker exploration of anlotinib plus penpulimab in second-line ES-SCLC: Results from the phase 2 ALTER-L041 trial.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Trial
- Whole exome sequencing identifies somatically mutated genes in bladder cancer: A pilot study from Bangladesh.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Very High vs. High Tumor Mutational Burden Across Tumors: Real-World Associations with MSI, Pathway Features, and Immunotherapy Outcomes.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Genomic diversity and BCL9L mutational status in circulating tumor cells predict overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Different NGS identification methods of somatic mutation sites in solid tumors impact TMB results.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Genetic Alterations in HER2-Positive and Equivocal Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2025Article
- Tumor Mutational Burden as a Biomarker of Immunotherapy Response: An Immunogram Approach in Onco-immunology.Current molecular medicine · 2024Review
- Cancer Biomarkers and Precision Oncology: A Review of Recent Trends and Innovations.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Review
- Challenges and Future Directions in the Management of Tumor Mutational Burden-High (TMB-H) Advanced Solid Malignancies.Cancers · 2023Review
- Predictive biomarkers of response and survival following immunotherapy with a PD-L1 inhibitor benmelstobart (TQB2450) and antiangiogenic therapy with a VEGFR inhibitor anlotinib for pretreated advanced triple negative breast cancer.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2023Article
- Article
- Circulating immune cell dynamics as outcome predictors for immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2023Review
- Non-BRCA1/BRCA2 high-risk familial breast cancers are not associated with a high prevalence of BRCAness.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Article
- Next-generation sequencing methodologies to detect low-frequency mutations: "Catch me if you can".Mutation research. Reviews in mutation researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTumour mutation burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase within the sequenced region in the tumour sample, has been used as a biomarker for predicting response to immune therapy. Several studies have been conducted to assess the utility of TMB for various cancer types; however, methods to measure TMB have not been adequately evaluated. In this study, we identified two sources of bias in current methods to calculate TMB.
methodsWe used simulated data to quantify the two sources of bias and their effect on TMB calculation, we down-sampled sequencing reads from exome sequencing datasets from TCGA to evaluate the consistency in TMB estimation across different sequencing depths. We analyzed data from ten cancer cohorts to investigate the relationship between inferred TMB and sequencing depth.
resultsWe found that TMB, estimated by counting the number of somatic mutations above a threshold frequency (typically 0.05), is not robust to sequencing depth. Furthermore, we show that, because only mutations with an observed frequency greater than the threshold are considered, the observed mutant allele frequency provides a biased estimate of the true frequency. This can result in substantial over-estimation of the TMB, when the cancer sample includes a large number of somatic mutations at low frequencies, and exacerbates the lack of robustness of TMB to variation in sequencing depth and tumour purity.
conclusionOur results demonstrate that care needs to be taken in the estimation of TMB to ensure that results are unbiased and consistent across studies and we suggest that accurate and robust estimation of TMB could be achieved using statistical models that estimate the full mutant allele frequency spectrum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.