Galvano A, Gristina V, Malapelle U, Pisapia P, Pepe F, Barraco N, Castiglia M, Perez A, Rolfo C, Troncone G, Russo A, and Bazan V
Background: The role of tumor mutational burden (TMB) is still debated for selecting advanced non-oncogene addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who might benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Of note, TMB failed to predict a benefit in overall survival (OS) among such patients., Materials and Methods: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy outcomes among first-line immune-oncology (IO) agents versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) within two subgroups (TMB-low and TMB-high on either tissue or blood). We collected hazard ratios (HRs) to evaluate the association for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, with the relative 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk ratios (RRs) were used as an association measure for objective response rate (ORR)., Results: Eight different cohorts of five randomized controlled phase III studies (3848 patients) were analyzed. In TMB-high patients, IO agents were associated with improved ORR (RRs 1.37, 95% CI 1.13-1.66), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.61-0.79) and OS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.77) when compared with CT, thus suggesting a possible predictive role of high TMB for IO regimens. In TMB-low patients, the IO strategy did not lead to any significant benefit in survival and activity, whereas the pooled results of both ORR and PFS were intriguingly associated with a statistical significance in favor of CT., Conclusions: This meta-analysis resulted in a proven benefit in OS in favor of IO agents in the TMB-high population. Although more prospective data are warranted, we postulated the hypothesis that monitoring TMB, in addition to the existing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level, could represent the preferable option for future clinical research in the first-line management of advanced non-oncogene addicted NSCLC patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure UM reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Merck, BMS for participation in a speaker bureau; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Amgen, Merck, BMS for acting in an advisory role, financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Amgen that was paid directly to his institution outside the submitted work. CR reports personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, for participation in a speaker bureau; personal fees from Mylan, Archer, Merck Serono, Inivata for acting in an advisory scientific role; and has research collaborations with Biomarkers and Guardant Health outside the submitted work. GT reports personal fees from Roche for participation in a speaker bureau; personal fees from MSD, Pfizer for acting in an advisory role. AR reports personal fees from Bristol, Pfizer, Bayer, Kyowa Kirin, Ambrosetti for advisory board activity; speaker honorarium from Roche Diagnostics. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)