Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39915003›Full record

ArticleJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2025

Tumor mutational burden and survival on immune checkpoint inhibition in >8000 patients across 24 cancer types.

David R Gandara, Neeraj Agarwal, Shilpa Gupta, Samuel J Klempner, Miles C Andrews, Amit Mahipal, Vivek Subbiah, Ramez N Eskander, David P Carbone, Jonathan W Riess and 12 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. LRP1b Loss Predicts Sensitivity to Immunotherapy in Patients with NSCLC: An Analysis of the Phase III CheckMate-026 Randomized Trial.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

David R GandaraDepartment of Medicine, Cancer Ctr So./Division of Hematologic & Oncology, UC Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-048X
Neeraj AgarwalDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Utah Health Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1076-0428
Shilpa GuptaDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Samuel J KlempnerMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Miles C AndrewsDepartment of Medicine, Monash University Central Clinical School, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1231-8641
Amit MahipalLake Health University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Vivek SubbiahSarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Ramez N EskanderDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, California, USA.
David P CarboneThe Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3002-1921
Jonathan W RiessUC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, California, USA.
Sarah SammonsBreast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jeremy SniderFlatiron Health Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Lilia BouzitFlatiron Health Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Cheryl Cho-PhanFlatiron Health Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Megan PriceFlatiron Health Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Gerald LiFoundation Medicine Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Julia C F QuintanilhaFoundation Medicine Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Richard Sheng Poe HuangFoundation Medicine Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8395-5168
Jeffrey S RossFoundation Medicine Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David FabrizioFoundation Medicine Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Geoffrey R OxnardBoston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ryon P GrafFoundation Medicine Inc, San Diego, California, USA rgraf@foundationmedicine.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8065-4148

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is uncertainty around clinical applicability of tumor mutational burden (TMB) across cancer types, in part because of inconsistency between TMB measurements from different platforms. The KEYNOTE 158 trial supported United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the Foundation Medicine test (FoundationOneCDx) at TMB≥10 mut/Mb as a companion diagnostic (CDx) for single-agent pembrolizumab in second+line. Using a large real-world dataset with validated survival endpoint data, we evaluated clinical validity of TMB measurement by the test in over 8000 patients across 24 cancer types who received single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI).

methodsPatients with advanced-stage cancers from 24 cancer types treated with single-agent anti-PD(L)1 therapy in standard-of-care settings were included. Deidentified data from electronic health records from approximately 280 cancer treatment facilities were captured into a clinico-genomic database. This study used the TMB algorithm from the FDA-approved test supporting solid tumor CDx and composite mortality variable validated against the national death index: real-world overall survival (rwOS). Following a prespecified analysis plan, rwOS by TMB level was assessed using Cox PH models adjusted for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, prior treatment, microsatellite instability, sex, age, opioid rx pretherapy, and socioeconomic assessment.

results8440 patients met inclusion criteria. Adjusting for aforementioned factors, increasing TMB was significantly associated with rwOS across tumor types; HRs (95% CIs) relative to TMB<5: TMB 5 to <10: 0.95 (0.89 to 1.02), TMB 10 to <20: 0.79 (0.73 to 0.85), TMB≥20: 0.52 (0.47 to 0.58). For individual cancer types with prespecified statistical power, adjusted rwOS comparing TMB≥10 vs TMB<10 significantly favored TMB≥10 in 9 of 10 cancer types. In microsatellite stable subcohorts (except colorectal cancer), TMB≥10 remained associated with enriched ICI benefit. Exploratory assessments of patients receiving ICI+chemotherapy (n=4369) observed more favorable rwOS only in TMB≥20.

conclusionsAcross >8000 patients treated with single-agent ICI, and within individual cancer types with sufficient power, elevated TMB based on the FDA-approved CDx was associated with more favorable rwOS compared with similar patients with lower TMB levels. This biomarker deserves further clinical investigation to potentially guide the use of immunotherapy in expanded clinical contexts.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMutationNeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsBiomarkerImmune Checkpoint InhibitorImmunotherapyTumor mutation burden - TMB

Identifiers

PMID39915003
PMCPMC11815411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.