Skip to main content
. 2019 Nov 12;10(61):6604–6622. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.27287

Table 2. Publications reporting primary efficacy outcomes (OS, PFS, ORR) in patients receiving active therapy for lung cancer.

Median OS (Months) [HR (95% CI)/P Value] Median PFS (Months) [HR (95% CI)/P Value] ORR (%) [P Value]
IMMUNOTHERAPY
Carbone 2017 [10]
 Nivolumab/1L Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 12.7 vs 18.3 [P: NR] Low vs intermediate vs high TMB: 6.9 vs 6.5 vs 9.7 [P: NR] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 23% vs 47% [P: NR]
Davis 2017 [28]
 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors Longer with high TMB [0.19 (0.04 to 0.88); P = .034] NR NR
Gettinger 2017 [29]
 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors NR [P = .92] NR Higher with high TMB [P = .02]
Goodman 2017 [16]
 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 7.6 vs not reached [0.32 (0.07 to 1.50); P = .15] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 2.1 vs 12.5 [0.32 (0.13 to 0.81); P = .0817] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 18% vs 33% [P = .4882]
Kowanetz 2017 [30]
 Atezolizumab/1L Longer with high TMB [50th percentile: 0.79 (0.39 to 1.58), P: NR; 75th percentile: 0.45 (0.17 to 1.16), P: NR] Longer with high TMB [50th percentile: 0.58 (0.36 to 0.94), P: NR; 75th percentile: 0.54 (0.3 to 0.97), P: NR] Low vs high TMB (50th percentile): 13% vs 28% [P: NR] Low vs high TMB (75th percentile): 20% vs 25% [P: NR]
 Atezolizumab/2L Longer with high TMB [50th percentile: 0.87 (0.65 to 1.16), P: NR; 75th percentile: 0.7 (0.49 to 1.0), P: NR] Longer with high TMB [50th percentile: 0.64 (0.5 to 0.8), P: NR; 75th percentile: 0.5 (0.38 to 0.67), P: NR] Low vs high TMB (50th percentile): 14% vs 25% [P: NR] Low vs high TMB (75th percentile): 16% vs 29% [P: NR]
Haratani 2017 [31]
 Nivolumab NR NR Higher with high TMB [P = .038]
Hellmann 2017 [34]
 Anti-PD-L1 +/- anti-CTLA-4 therapy NR Longer with high TMB [HR: 0.59 (95% CI: NR); P = .004] NR
Hellmann 2018 [33]
 Nivolumab + Ipilimumab NR Low vs high TMB: 3.2 vs 7.2 [P: NR] NR
Hellmann 2018 [32]
 Nivolumab Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 3.1 vs 5.4 [P: NR] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 1.3 vs 1.4 [P: NR] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 7% vs 21% [P: NR]
 Nivolumab + ipilimumab Intermediate vs high TMB: 3.4 vs 22.0 [P: NR] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 1.3 vs 7.8 [P: NR] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 22% vs 46% [P: NR]
Mahadevan 2017 [36]
 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors NR Longer with high TMB [P = . 015] NR
Park 2017 [37]
 Nivolumab Low vs intermediate vs high TMB: 12.4 vs 10.3 vs not reached [P = .211] NR NR
Patel 2017 [38]
 Immunotherapy NR [P = .5] NR NR
Rizvi 2015 [1]
 Pembrolizumab (cohort 1) NR Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 3.7 vs 14.5 [P = .01] Low vs high TMB: 0% vs 63% [P = .03]
 Pembrolizumab (cohort 2) NR Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 3.4 vs not reached [P = .006] Low vs high TMB: 22% vs 56% [NR]
Roszik 2016 [39]
 Pembrolizumab NR Low vs high TMB: 4.1 vs 8.3 [P = .0003] Low vs high TMB: 0% vs 48% [NR]
Singal 2017 [41]
 Nivolumab Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 10 vs not reached [P < .01] NR NR
Yaghmour 2016 [44]
 Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab Low vs high TMB: 4.9 vs not reached [HR undefined (95% CI: 0.04 to 1.90); P = .21] NR NR
CHEMOTHERAPY
Carbone 2017 [10]
 Platinum-based chemotherapy NR Low vs intermediate vs high TMB: 4.2 vs 3.6 vs 5.8 [NR] Low/intermediate vs high TMB: 33% vs 28% [NR]
Hellmann 2018 [33]
 Chemotherapy NR Low vs high TMB: 5.5 vs 5.5 [NR] NR
NOT SPECIFIED
Choi 2017 [27]
 Not specified NR [P = .5933] NR [P = .7765] NR
Wang 2017* [42]
 Not specified NR Shorter with high TMB* [P = .0133] NR
Xiao 2016 [43]
 Not specified Low vs high TMB: 61 vs 48.4 [P = .02] NR NR

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ration; NR, not reported; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TMB, tumor mutational burden.

*Wang 2017 presents disease-free survival, not progression-free survival.