Assessment of spatial transcriptomics for oncology discovery.

Tumor heterogeneity is a major challenge for oncology drug discovery and development. Understanding of the spatial tumor landscape is key to identifying new targets and impactful model systems. Here, we test the utility of spatial transcriptomics (ST) for oncology discovery by profiling 40 tissue sections and 80,024 capture spots across a diverse set of tissue types, sample formats, and RNA capture chemistries. We verify the accuracy and fidelity of ST by leveraging matched pathology analysis, which provides a ground truth for tissue section composition. We then use spatial data to demonstrate the capture of key tumor depth features, identifying hypoxia, necrosis, vasculature, and extracellular matrix variation. We also leverage spatial context to identify relative cell-type locations showing the anti-correlation of tumor and immune cells in syngeneic cancer models. Lastly, we demonstrate target identification approaches in clinical pancreatic adenocarcinoma samples, highlighting tumor intrinsic biomarkers and paracrine signaling.

Bioinformatic Methods and Bridging of Assay Results for Reliable Tumor Mutational Burden Assessment in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a clinically relevant biomarker that may be associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Standardization of TMB measurement is essential for implementing diagnostic tools to guide treatment. OBJECTIVE: Here we describe the in-depth evaluation of bioinformatic TMB analysis by whole exome sequencing (WES) in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from a phase III clinical trial. METHODS: In the CheckMate 026 clinical trial, TMB was retrospectively assessed in 312 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (58% of the intent-to-treat population) who received first-line nivolumab treatment or standard-of-care chemotherapy. We examined the sensitivity of TMB assessment to bioinformatic filtering methods and assessed concordance between TMB data derived by WES and the FoundationOne® CDx assay. RESULTS: TMB scores comprising synonymous, indel, frameshift, and nonsense mutations (all mutations) were 3.1-fold higher than data including missense mutations only, but values were highly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.99). Scores from CheckMate 026 samples including missense mutations only were similar to those generated from data in The Cancer Genome Atlas, but those including all mutations were generally higher. Using databases for germline subtraction (instead of matched controls) showed a trend for race-dependent increases in TMB scores. WES and FoundationOne CDx outputs were highly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Parameter variation can impact TMB calculations, highlighting the need for standardization. Encouragingly, differences between assays could be accounted for by empirical calibration, suggesting that reliable TMB assessment across assays, platforms, and centers is achievable.