MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407164318 · doi:10.1002/cam4.71888

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Tumour Mutation Burden on Survival Outcomes in Solid Tumours

2025· review· en· W4407164318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander Yuile, Hao‐Wen Sim, Subotheni Thavaneswaran, Humaira Noor, Jacky T. Yeung, Ashish Mehta, Joseph E. Powell, Ashraf Zaman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCharlie Teo Foundation
KeywordsMeta-analysisOncologyInternal medicineMedicineMutationBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Tumour mutation burden (TMB) is an emerging pan‐cancer biomarker with predictive value for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) outcomes, yet evidence is inconsistent due to methodological variability and cut‐off thresholds. This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated the impact of TMB on overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) across solid tumours in ICI‐treated cohorts and its predictive relevance in non‐ICI‐treated cohorts. Methods Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Cochrane for studies published between 2010 and 2024 reporting hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS and PFS in high‐ versus low‐TMB cohorts. High and low TMB were defined by study‐specific cut‐offs, and ultra‐high TMB was defined as the top 20% of cohort‐specific values. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale; heterogeneity with I 2 ; publication bias with funnel plots/Egger's test; and robustness by leave‐one‐out analysis. Results 5278 patients across 28 studies were analysed. High TMB, defined by cohort‐specific cut‐offs, was significantly associated with improved OS and PFS, particularly in non‐small cell lung cancer (OS: HR = 0.56), selected gastrointestinal cancers (OS: HR = 0.36), and advanced/recurrent tumours (OS: HR = 0.52). Benefits were greatest in ICI‐treated patients, especially with combined anti‐PD‐L1/PD‐1 and anti‐CTLA‐4 therapy (OS: HR = 0.47; PFS: HR = 0.50). Chemotherapy‐treated cohorts also showed better outcomes, but less consistently (OS: HR = 0.60; PFS: HR = 0.55). Ultra‐high TMB had better OS than the universal 10 mut/Mb cut‐off (HR = 0.44 vs. 0.58). Non‐beneficial associations were observed in glioma and penile squamous cell carcinoma, highlighting disease‐specific variability. Sequencing platforms and cut‐off definitions remained sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion TMB demonstrates prognostic relevance and predictive utility in a histology‐ and treatment‐context‐dependent manner, with the most consistent associations in selected ICI‐treated tumours. Associations in non‐ICI‐treated cohorts were weaker and inconsistent, indicating putative predictive value. Standardising TMB assessment and refining relevant thresholds are essential for optimising its role in precision oncology. Trial Registration PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024608809

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207