KRAS is the most common oncogenic driver in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAC). We previously reported that STK11/LKB1 (KL) or TP53 (KP) comutations define distinct subgroups of KRAS-mutant LUAC. Here, we examine the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in these subgroups. Objective response rates to PD-1 blockade differed significantly among KL (7.4%), KP (35.7%), and K-only (28.6%) subgroups (P < 0.001) in the Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) cohort (174 patients) with KRAS-mutant LUAC and in patients treated with nivolumab in the CheckMate-057 phase III trial (0% vs. 57.1% vs. 18.2%; P = 0.047). In the SU2C cohort, KL LUAC exhibited shorter progression-free (P < 0.001) and overall (P = 0.0015) survival compared with KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT LUAC. Among 924 LUACs, STK11/LKB1 alterations were the only marker significantly associated with PD-L1 negativity in TMBIntermediate/High LUAC. The impact of STK11/LKB1 alterations on clinical outcomes with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors extended to PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer. In Kras-mutant murine LUAC models, Stk11/Lkb1 loss promoted PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor resistance, suggesting a causal role. Our results identify STK11/LKB1 alterations as a major driver of primary resistance to PD-1 blockade in KRAS-mutant LUAC.

Significance: This work identifies STK11/LKB1 alterations as the most prevalent genomic driver of primary resistance to PD-1 axis inhibitors in KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma. Genomic profiling may enhance the predictive utility of PD-L1 expression and tumor mutation burden and facilitate establishment of personalized combination immunotherapy approaches for genomically defined LUAC subsets. Cancer Discov; 8(7); 822–35. ©2018 AACR.

See related commentary by Etxeberria et al., p. 794.

This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 781

Despite improvements in overall survival (OS) and clinical responses of unprecedented duration with the use of therapeutic mAbs that target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death-1 ligand (PD-L1), the majority of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) fail to respond to PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibitors (1–8). The landscape of primary resistance to PD-1 blockade in NSCLC is largely unknown, with no single factor capable of accurately segregating responders from nonresponders. Expression of PD-L1 on the membrane of tumor and immune cells is associated with enhanced objective response rates (ORR) to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition, but is neither sensitive nor specific (1–3, 7, 9–12). A higher burden of nonsynonymous somatic mutations [tumor mutation burden (TMB)] further correlates with increased likelihood of clinical benefit and is undergoing evaluation as a predictive biomarker in many tumor types (4, 13–15).

KRAS mutations are the most prevalent oncogenic driver in NSCLC, accounting for approximately 25% of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAC; refs. 16, 17). We previously reported that co-occurring genomic alterations in KRAS and the STK11/LKB1 (KL) or TP53 (KP) tumor suppressor genes define subgroups of KRAS-mutant LUAC with distinct biology, therapeutic vulnerabilities, and immune profiles (18). STK11/LKB1 encodes a serine threonine kinase with an established role in the regulation of cellular metabolism/energy homeostasis, growth, and polarity through phosphorylation of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and 12 AMPK-related kinases (19). Inactivation of STK11 by mutational or nonmutational mechanisms is associated with an inert or “cold” tumor immune microenvironment, with reduced density of infiltrating cytotoxic CD8+ T lymphocytes in both human tumors and genetically engineered murine models (18, 20, 21). On the basis of these findings, we hypothesized that STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations may predict for lack of clinical benefit from PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in KRAS-mutant LUAC and conducted a study to address this hypothesis and examine the interrelationship between individual genetic alterations, TMB, and PD-L1 expression.

Patient Characteristics

One hundred seventy-four patients who met the prespecified eligibility criteria were included in the Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) dataset [MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC; N = 62), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC; N = 56), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Massachusetts General Hospital (DFCI/MGH; N = 56); Table 1]. The overall cohort was representative of the general population of patients with KRAS-mutant LUAC with median patient age of 66 years (range, 42–87), high percentage of current/former smokers (88.5%), and typical frequencies of distinct KRAS-mutant alleles (Supplementary Fig. S1A and S1B; refs. 16–18, 22). Across the entire cohort, 31% of tumors were classified as KL, 32% were KP, and 37% K-only (Supplementary Fig. S1C). The majority of patients received PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy (165/174, 95%) and the remainder received combination with CTLA4 blockade (9/174, 5%; Supplementary Fig. S1A). Demographic and clinical characteristics were generally well balanced between the comutation-defined subgroups (Supplementary Fig. S1A and S1D). STK11/LKB1 mutations were in their overwhelming majority predicted to be deleterious (Supplementary Fig. S2).

Table 1.

Clinical cohorts included in the study

CohortStand Up To Cancer (SU2C)
Foundation Medicine (FM)MDACCMSKCCDFCI/MGHCheckmate-057 (CM-057)MDACC (PD-L1 ≥ 1%)
N924 (346 KRASMUT)174
6256564466
Nivolumab NA 146 24 16 
Pembrolizumab NA 19 NA 40 
Atezolizumab NA NA 
anti-PD(L)-1 + anti-CTLA4 NA NA 
Docetaxel NA NA 20 NA 
Other NA NA NA 2a 
CohortStand Up To Cancer (SU2C)
Foundation Medicine (FM)MDACCMSKCCDFCI/MGHCheckmate-057 (CM-057)MDACC (PD-L1 ≥ 1%)
N924 (346 KRASMUT)174
6256564466
Nivolumab NA 146 24 16 
Pembrolizumab NA 19 NA 40 
Atezolizumab NA NA 
anti-PD(L)-1 + anti-CTLA4 NA NA 
Docetaxel NA NA 20 NA 
Other NA NA NA 2a 

aOne patient with STK11/LKB1–mutant tumor was treated with nivolumab and NKTR-214 (CD122-based agonist) and one patient with STK11/LKB1 wild-type tumor was treated with pembrolizumab and OX40 agonist.

Comutations in STK11/LKB1 Are Associated with Inferior Clinical Outcome with PD-1 Blockade in Multiple Independent Cohorts of KRAS-mutant LUAC

The objective response rates to PD-1 inhibition in KL, KP, and K-only groups were significantly different (P < 0.001, Fisher exact test; Fig. 1A and C). KL tumors were mostly resistant to PD-1 axis blockade (ORR 7.4% overall), with consistently low response rates seen in each of the three independent datasets (MDACC: 9.1%, MSKCC: 9.1%, DFCI/MGH: 4.8%). In contrast, KP LUAC were more sensitive to PD-1 inhibitors (ORR 35.7% overall). K-only tumors with no identifiable mutations in either STK11/LKB1 or TP53 had an intermediate response rate (28.6%). Assessment of additional co-occurring genetic alterations in the few KL tumors that responded to PD-1 blockade did not identify any obvious unifying molecular features (Supplementary Fig. S3).

Figure 1.

STK11/LKB1 comutations are associated with inferior objective response rate with PD-1 blockade in KRAS-mutant LUAC. A, Objective response rate (RECISTv1.1) to PD-1 axis blockade in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups in the overall SU2C population (N = 173 response-evaluable patients) and in each of the three independent cohorts (MDACC, MSKCC, DFCI/MGH). A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 3 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership and best overall response (BOR; PR/CR vs. SD/PD). B, Objective response rate to nivolumab in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups in the CheckMate-057 international randomized phase III clinical trial (n = 24). A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 3 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership and best overall response (PR/CR vs. SD/PD). PR, partial response; CR, complete response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease. C, Waterfall plots illustrating individual patient-level maximal % change in tumor burden from baseline in response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition in the SU2C cohort. Only data from response-evaluable patients with measurable disease are graphed. Red, progressive disease; purple, stable disease; blue, partial response/complete response.

Figure 1.

STK11/LKB1 comutations are associated with inferior objective response rate with PD-1 blockade in KRAS-mutant LUAC. A, Objective response rate (RECISTv1.1) to PD-1 axis blockade in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups in the overall SU2C population (N = 173 response-evaluable patients) and in each of the three independent cohorts (MDACC, MSKCC, DFCI/MGH). A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 3 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership and best overall response (BOR; PR/CR vs. SD/PD). B, Objective response rate to nivolumab in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups in the CheckMate-057 international randomized phase III clinical trial (n = 24). A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 3 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership and best overall response (PR/CR vs. SD/PD). PR, partial response; CR, complete response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease. C, Waterfall plots illustrating individual patient-level maximal % change in tumor burden from baseline in response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition in the SU2C cohort. Only data from response-evaluable patients with measurable disease are graphed. Red, progressive disease; purple, stable disease; blue, partial response/complete response.

Close modal

To replicate these findings in the context of a randomized clinical trial, we further analyzed the impact of STK11/LKB1 and TP53 genetic alterations on clinical outcomes in 44 patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC (96% LUAC) with available whole-exome sequencing (WES) data that were randomly assigned to treatment with nivolumab (n = 24) or docetaxel (n = 20) in the CheckMate-057 randomized phase III clinical trial (NCT01673867). In agreement with data from the SU2C cohort, ORR differed significantly between the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups in the nivolumab arm of CM-057 (P = 0.047), with KL tumors being refractory (ORR: 0%, 0/6) and KP more sensitive (ORR: 57.1%, 4/7) to nivolumab (Fig. 1B). Although ORR did not differ significantly among the three subgroups in the docetaxel arm (P = 0.65), it is relevant to note that the ORR in the KL subgroup was 0% [0/3; ORR was 0% (0/6) and 18.2% (2/11) in KP and K-only subgroups, respectively]. Given the relatively small numbers within subgroups, it cannot be determined whether STK11/LKB1 mutation is prognostic or predictive of treatment outcomes in the CM-057 dataset.

Progression-free survival (PFS) differed among the three groups in the SU2C cohort (P = 0.0018), with significantly shorter PFS for patients with KL compared with either KP [HR 1.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16–2.69; P = 0.0072] or K-only tumors (HR 1.98; 95% CI, 1.33–2.94; P < 0.001) in pair-wise comparisons (Fig. 2A, left). In contrast, patients with KP and K-only tumors had similar PFS. Because STK11/LKB1 abrogation likely determines immunotherapy resistance in this context, we further compared PFS in patients with STK11/LKB1 wild-type and mutant tumors by merging the KP and K-only cohorts. PFS was significantly shorter in KL tumors compared with KRAS-mutant LUAC with wild-type STK11/LKB1 (HR 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.66; P < 0.001; Fig. 2A, right). The CM-057 study had limited power to detect PFS or OS differences due to the small size of subgroup cohorts, and no significant differences were seen in PFS or OS in either arm (Supplementary Figs. S4 and S5).

Figure 2.

STK11/LKB1 genetic alterations are associated with shorter progression-free and overall survival with PD-1 blockade among KRAS-mutant LUAC in the SU2C cohort. A, Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival with PD-1 blockade in the KL, KP, K-only subgroups (left) and in the two-group comparison between KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1MUT (KL) and KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT LUAC (encompassing KP and K-only tumors; right). Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive and without disease progression (date of last radiologic assessment). mPFS, median progression-free survival. B, Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival with PD-1 inhibitors in the KL, KP, K-only subgroups (left) and in the two-group comparison between KRASMUT;STK11MUT (KL) and KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT tumors (right). Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive. mOS, median overall survival.

Figure 2.

STK11/LKB1 genetic alterations are associated with shorter progression-free and overall survival with PD-1 blockade among KRAS-mutant LUAC in the SU2C cohort. A, Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival with PD-1 blockade in the KL, KP, K-only subgroups (left) and in the two-group comparison between KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1MUT (KL) and KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT LUAC (encompassing KP and K-only tumors; right). Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive and without disease progression (date of last radiologic assessment). mPFS, median progression-free survival. B, Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival with PD-1 inhibitors in the KL, KP, K-only subgroups (left) and in the two-group comparison between KRASMUT;STK11MUT (KL) and KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT tumors (right). Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive. mOS, median overall survival.

Close modal

OS also varied significantly among the three groups in the SU2C cohort (P = 0.0045; Fig. 2B, left). Median OS was 6.4 months in KL compared with 16.0 months in KP and 16.1 months in K-only LUACs. In the two-group comparison, OS was significantly shorter in STK11/LKB1-mutant compared with wild-type tumors (HR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.29–3.06; P = 0.0015; Fig. 2B, right). KRAS subgroup remained a significant independent predictor of OS on multivariate analysis (P = 0.00055). Notably, STK11/LKB1 mutation or deficiency were not associated with worse OS in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort, arguing against a purely prognostic role for STK11/LKB1 inactivation in this setting of predominantly early-stage, surgically resected tumors (Supplementary Fig. S6), in agreement with previous studies in metastatic tumors (23–25).

Because nonmutational mechanisms can also account for STK11/LKB1 inactivation in LUAC (19), we further assessed expression of STK11/LKB1 by IHC in a subset of tumors for which archival tissue was available (26). KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1MUT (KL) tumors expressed low to undetectable levels of LKB1, whereas KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT tumors displayed variable levels of STK11/LKB1 expression, with 17.6% having a LKB1 H-score of zero (Fig. 3A). Patients bearing STK11/LKB1-deficient tumors (STK11/LKB1MUTor STK11/LKB1WT and LKB1 H-score zero) exhibited significantly shorter PFS (HR 1.80; 95% CI, 1.15–2.82; P = 0.0094; Fig. 3B, left) and OS (HR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.13–3.65; P = 0.016; Fig. 3B, right) compared with those harboring STK11/LKB1-proficient tumors (STK11/LKB1WT and LKB1 H-score > 0).

Figure 3.

STK11/LKB1 expression by IHC can identify STK11/LKB1-deficient LUAC in the absence of STK11/LKB1 alterations. A, LKB1 IHC expression (H-score) in KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1MUT (KL) and KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT LUAC. Quantitative IHC using a commercially available STK11/LKB1 rabbit mAb (clone D60C5F10, Cell Signaling Technology) is technically robust and can identify STK11/LKB1-deficient tumors with intact STK11/LKB1 genomic locus (26). Left, KL LUACs (n = 12) exhibit absent or minimal cytoplasmic STK11/LKB1 staining, whereas KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT LUACs (n = 34) display variable LKB1 H-score. LUACs were therefore considered LKB1-proficient (prof) if they had intact STK11/LKB1 locus and expressed STK11/LKB1 by IHC at any level (LKB1 H-score > 0) and STK11/LKB1-deficient (def) if they were STK11/LKB1-altered and/or exhibited LKB1 H-score = 0. Representative images of KL and KP LUAC immunostained for STK11/LKB1 are included (right). Staining was performed as described previously (26). B, Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival (left) and overall survival (right) with PD-1 blockade in LKB1-deficient (STK11/LKB1-mutant and/or STK11/LKB1 H-score = 0; N = 61) and STK11/LKB1-proficient (STK11/LKB1–wild-type and STK11/LKB1 H-score > 0; N = 38) KRAS-mutant LUAC.

Figure 3.

STK11/LKB1 expression by IHC can identify STK11/LKB1-deficient LUAC in the absence of STK11/LKB1 alterations. A, LKB1 IHC expression (H-score) in KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1MUT (KL) and KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT LUAC. Quantitative IHC using a commercially available STK11/LKB1 rabbit mAb (clone D60C5F10, Cell Signaling Technology) is technically robust and can identify STK11/LKB1-deficient tumors with intact STK11/LKB1 genomic locus (26). Left, KL LUACs (n = 12) exhibit absent or minimal cytoplasmic STK11/LKB1 staining, whereas KRASMUT;STK11/LKB1WT LUACs (n = 34) display variable LKB1 H-score. LUACs were therefore considered LKB1-proficient (prof) if they had intact STK11/LKB1 locus and expressed STK11/LKB1 by IHC at any level (LKB1 H-score > 0) and STK11/LKB1-deficient (def) if they were STK11/LKB1-altered and/or exhibited LKB1 H-score = 0. Representative images of KL and KP LUAC immunostained for STK11/LKB1 are included (right). Staining was performed as described previously (26). B, Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival (left) and overall survival (right) with PD-1 blockade in LKB1-deficient (STK11/LKB1-mutant and/or STK11/LKB1 H-score = 0; N = 61) and STK11/LKB1-proficient (STK11/LKB1–wild-type and STK11/LKB1 H-score > 0; N = 38) KRAS-mutant LUAC.

Close modal

STK11/LKB1 Mutations Are Significantly Enriched among TMB Intermediate/High, PD-L1–Negative Tumors

In a parallel, unbiased analysis, we sought to identify candidate genomic drivers of absent PD-L1 expression (as an indicator of a “cold” or non-T cell–inflamed immune microenvironment) in LUAC using the large Foundation Medicine (FM) dataset (Supplementary Fig. S7). We focused on TMB intermediate and high (TMBI/H) tumors and excluded TMB low (TMBL) LUAC because low TMB has been associated with impaired response to PD-1 axis inhibitors in retrospective studies, likely due to poor tumor immunogenicity (4, 13). We then compared the prevalence of individual genomic alterations in PD-L1 negative (PD-L1Neg; TMBI/H) versus high positive (PD-L1HP; TMBI/H) tumors (Fig. 4A). This analysis identified STK11/LKB1 as the only significantly enriched gene in the PD-L1–negative group (adjusted P < 0.001). Further interrogation of the PD-L1/TMB landscape indicated that STK11/LKB1 alterations are most prominently enriched in TMBI; PD-L1Neg samples, and LUAC-bearing STK11/LKB1 alterations are less likely to be either PD-L1HP or TMBL (Fig. 4B). Furthermore, STK11/LKB1 was significantly enriched (P < 0.001) for PD-L1Neg; TMBI/H-negative status even when the analysis was restricted to KRAS-mutant samples. Thus, we conclude that STK11/LKB1 is associated with higher likelihood of absent PD-L1 expression among TMBI/H tumors irrespective of KRAS status.

Figure 4.

STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations are enriched in LUACs with intermediate or high TMB that are negative for PD-L1 expression. A, PD-L1/TMB landscape matrix illustrating the enrichment analysis strategy in 924 LUAC samples with available comprehensive genomic profiling and PD-L1 expression (FM cohort). Enrichment of individual genomic alterations in PD-L1Neg; TMBI/H versus PD-L1HP; TMBI/H tumors was assessed using a one-sided Fisher exact test. B, Heat map of log-odds values reflecting the prevalence of STK11/LKB1 alterations in different cells of the PD-L1/TMB matrix. Alterations in STK11/LKB1 primarily cluster in TMBI;PD-L1Neg LUAC. C, PD-L1 expression in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups in the FM (n = 346), SU2C (n = 69), and CM-057 (n = 44) cohorts. A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 3 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership and PD-L1 expression status [PD-L1 positive (≥1%) or negative (0%)]. D, TMB (log10) in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups among 346 KRAS-mutant LUAC in the FM cohort.

Figure 4.

STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations are enriched in LUACs with intermediate or high TMB that are negative for PD-L1 expression. A, PD-L1/TMB landscape matrix illustrating the enrichment analysis strategy in 924 LUAC samples with available comprehensive genomic profiling and PD-L1 expression (FM cohort). Enrichment of individual genomic alterations in PD-L1Neg; TMBI/H versus PD-L1HP; TMBI/H tumors was assessed using a one-sided Fisher exact test. B, Heat map of log-odds values reflecting the prevalence of STK11/LKB1 alterations in different cells of the PD-L1/TMB matrix. Alterations in STK11/LKB1 primarily cluster in TMBI;PD-L1Neg LUAC. C, PD-L1 expression in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups in the FM (n = 346), SU2C (n = 69), and CM-057 (n = 44) cohorts. A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 3 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership and PD-L1 expression status [PD-L1 positive (≥1%) or negative (0%)]. D, TMB (log10) in the KL, KP, and K-only subgroups among 346 KRAS-mutant LUAC in the FM cohort.

Close modal

We further analyzed PD-L1 expression and TMB in the KL/KP/K-only subgroups and their KRAS wild-type counterparts (Fig. 4C; Supplementary Fig. S8). PD-L1 expression varied significantly between the KRAS subgroups (Fig. 4C, P < 0.001), with KL least likely to be PD-L1HP (P < 0.001; Supplementary Fig. S8). Among KRAS wild-type tumors, STK11/LKB1 alterations were also associated with lower likelihood of high PD-L1 expression (Supplementary Fig. S8). KP LUAC exhibited the highest rate of PD-L1 positivity (56.3% PD-L1–positive, 31.3% PD-L1HP) followed by the TP53-altered, KRAS wild-type group (32.3% PD-L1-positive, 11% PD-L1HP; Supplementary Fig. S8). In contrast, median TMBs across samples with KRAS, STK11/LKB1, or TP53 alterations were comparable, ranging between 8.1 and 11.7 mutations/Mb (Fig. 4D; Supplementary Fig. S8).

Consistent with the observed association between STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations and low PD-L1 expression in the FM cohort, significant difference in the rate of PD-L1 positivity (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) was also noted among KL, KP, and K-only tumors in the SU2C and CheckMate-057 cohorts (Fig. 4C; Supplementary Fig. S9), with KL exhibiting the lowest frequency of PD-L1–positive (13.6% in the SU2C and 11.1% in the CM-057 cohort) and PD-L1HP tumors (0% in both cohorts; Fig. 4C; Supplementary Fig. S9).

We further directly interrogated the composition of the tumor immune microenvironment in surgically resected LUAC specimens (PROSPECT cohort) with available WES and automated quantitative IHC-based immune profiling (21, 27). In agreement with lower tumor cell PD-L1 expression, STK11/LKB1-mutated tumors exhibited lower densities of infiltrating CD3+ (P = 0.0019) and CD8+ (P = 0.0072) T lymphocytes but not FOXP3+ cells (P = 0.7648; Supplementary Fig. S10A). Furthermore, in the TCGA dataset STK11/LKB1-mutated LUAC (or STK11/LKB1-deficient LUAC as determined using a previously validated gene expression signature; ref. 28) exhibited lower T-cell signature scores (ref. 29; Supplementary Fig. S10B) and expressed lower CD274 (encoding PD-L1) mRNA levels (Supplementary Fig. S10C). Thus, we provide compelling evidence from multiple independent cohorts that STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations are associated with, and may actually promote, a non-T cell–inflamed immune microenvironment with lack of tumor cell PD-L1 expression, despite an intermediate or high TMB.

STK11/LKB1 Genomic Alterations Are Associated with Primary Resistance to PD-1 Axis Inhibitors in PD-L1–Positive NSCLC

In view of the strong association between STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations and lack of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, we also sought to examine the impact of STK11/LKB1 mutations on clinical responses to PD-1 axis blockade in PD-L1 positive (≥1%) nonsquamous NSCLC. For this analysis, we identified a distinct cohort of 66 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC (irrespective of KRAS status) treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors at MDACC, with available STK11/LKB1 genomic profiling and PD-L1 expression (assessed using the FDA-approved 22C3 pharmDx assay). Within this PD-L1–positive group, STK11/LKB1–mutated tumors exhibited significantly lower ORR to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade compared with NSCLC with intact STK11/LKB1 (ORR 0% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.026, Fisher exact test; Fig. 5A), despite inclusion of PD-L1–high-expressing tumors in the STK11/LKB1-mutant group (Fig. 5B). Importantly, STK11/LKB1 mutations were associated with dramatically shorter PFS (HR 4.76; 95% CI, 2.0–11.1, P = 0.00012, log-rank test) and OS (HR 14.3; 95% CI, 3.4–50.0, P < 0.0001, log-rank test) with PD-1 axis blockade (Fig. 5C and D). The effect of STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations on PFS and OS with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade did not differ significantly across PD-L1 high (PD-L1 ≥ 50%) and low (PD-L1 < 50%) groups (Pinteraction = 0.48 for PFS and Pinteraction = 0.59 for OS; Supplementary Fig. S11). We therefore conclude that STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations affect response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade at least partially independently of PD-L1 status and that their effect likely extends to the entire population of nonsquamous NSCLC regardless of KRAS status. Extension of the effect of STK11/LKB1 inactivation to the broader population of nonsquamous NSCLC is further supported by data from a separate cohort of patients with TMBI/H nonsquamous NSCLC (without available PD-L1 expression) treated with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, whereby STK11/LKB1 alterations (regardless of KRAS status) were associated with significantly shorter time on drug (HR 2.91; 95% CI, 1.22–6.92; P = 0.0156; Supplementary Fig. S12).

Figure 5.

STK11/LKB1 mutations are a genomic determinant of poor clinical outcome with PD-1 axis blockade in PD-L1–positive nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of KRAS status. A, Objective response rate (RECISTv1.1) to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type patients with PD-L1–positive nonsquamous NSCLC (≥1%) from MDACC (n = 66). PD-L1 expression was assessed using the FDA-approved 22C3 pharmDx assay (Dako). A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 2 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership (STK11/LKB1-mutant versus STK11/LKB1–wild-type) and best overall response (PR/CR vs. SD/PD). B, Fractions of PD-L1 low-positive (1%–49%) and PD-L1 high-positive (≥50%) tumors in the STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type groups. C, Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type groups. Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive and without disease progression (date of last radiologic assessment). D, Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival with PD-1 inhibitors in the STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type groups. Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive.

Figure 5.

STK11/LKB1 mutations are a genomic determinant of poor clinical outcome with PD-1 axis blockade in PD-L1–positive nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of KRAS status. A, Objective response rate (RECISTv1.1) to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type patients with PD-L1–positive nonsquamous NSCLC (≥1%) from MDACC (n = 66). PD-L1 expression was assessed using the FDA-approved 22C3 pharmDx assay (Dako). A two-tailed Fisher exact test (computed from a 2 × 2 contingency table) was used to assess the significance of the association between group membership (STK11/LKB1-mutant versus STK11/LKB1–wild-type) and best overall response (PR/CR vs. SD/PD). B, Fractions of PD-L1 low-positive (1%–49%) and PD-L1 high-positive (≥50%) tumors in the STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type groups. C, Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type groups. Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive and without disease progression (date of last radiologic assessment). D, Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival with PD-1 inhibitors in the STK11/LKB1-mutant and wild-type groups. Tick marks represent data censored at the last time the patient was known to be alive.

Close modal

TP53 Comutations May Affect Response to PD-1 Inhibitors in PD-L1–Negative KRAS-Mutant LUAC

As part of an exploratory analysis we interrogated the impact of KRAS comutations on clinical benefit from PD-1 blockade in PD-L1–negative tumors. Among PD-L1–negative KRAS-mutant LUAC in the SU2C cohort (n = 46), disease control rate differed significantly among the subgroups (P = 0.034) and was highest (70%) in KP tumors (Supplementary Fig. S13). The difference in ORR also favored the KP subgroup (30%), but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.11, Supplementary Fig. S13). This result further supports the notion that the predictive utility of comutations may extend beyond that of PD-L1 expression.

Stk11/Lkb1 Ablation Induces De Novo Resistance to PD-1 Blockade in a Syngeneic Murine Model of KRAS-Mutant LUAC

In order to establish whether primary resistance to immunotherapy is causally linked with STK11/LKB1 inactivation, we generated Stk11/Lkb1-proficient/deficient isogenic derivatives of the LKR13 Kras-mutant murine LUAC cell line (previously established from a spontaneously arising LUAC in the KrasLA1/+ model) using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated biallelic disruption of the Stk11/Lkb1 locus. Upon confirmation of Stk11/Lkb1 knockout (by immunoblotting for the STK11/LKB1 protein; Supplementary Fig. S14), isogenic cell lines were implanted into the right flank of syngeneic recipient mice, and cohorts of tumor-bearing mice were randomized to treatment with anti–PD-L1 mAb or IgG control. Treatment with anti–PD-L1 mAb potently suppressed LKR13-derived tumors, but growth of Stk11/Lkb1-deficient LKR13 knockout (LKR13KO) continued unabated (Fig. 6A). In agreement with findings in human STK11/LKB1-deficient tumors, lower numbers of CD3+CD8+ and CD3+CD8+/PD1+ T lymphocytes were present in Stk11/Lkb1-deficient LKR13KO tumors compared with their Stk11/Lkb1-proficient counterparts, whereas numbers of CD45+ and CD3+CD4+ cells were not significantly different (Supplementary Fig. S15). Furthermore, we did not observe enrichment of tumor-associated neutrophils in the microenvironment of Stk11/Lkb1-deficient tumors in this model (Supplementary Fig. S15), contrary to a previous report (20). Similar results were obtained using a second syngeneic tumor model based on the LKR10 Kras-mutant murine LUAC cell line in response to treatment with anti–PD-1 mAb or isotype control (Fig. 6B). Thus, Stk11/Lkb1 loss directly promotes primary resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and fosters establishment of a non-T cell–inflamed tumor immune microenvironment in immunocompetent murine models of KRAS-mutant LUAC.

Figure 6.

Stk11/Lkb1 ablation directly promotes primary resistance to PD-L1/PD-1 blockade in immunocompetent murine models of Kras-mutant LUAC. Stk11/Lkb1-proficient/deficient isogenic derivatives of the LKR13 (A) and LKR10 (B) cell lines were used in preclinical experiments. Changes in mean (main panels) and individual (inset panels) subcutaneous tumor volume following treatment with (A) anti–PD-L1 (mIgG1-D265AFc clone 80) or IgG control antibody (LKR13/LKR13KO isogenic pair) and (B) anti–PD-1 mAb (clone RMPI-14; BioXCell) or isotype control antibody (clone 2A3; BioXCell; LKR10/LKR10KO isogenic pair) are graphed. Error bars represent SEM. Mean tumor volume plots are depicted from the time of randomization to the time that the first mouse in any of the two treatment arms was sacrificed. Spider plots indicate individual tumor volume trajectories for the entire duration of the in vivo experiment (25 days for the LKR13/LKR13KO and 39 days for the LKR10/LKR10KO model). Note that PD-1/PD-L1 blockade blunts the in vivo growth of Stk11/Lkb1-proficient Kras-mutant LUAC, whereas Stk11/Lkb1 knockout renders tumors recalcitrant to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare mean tumor volumes between IgG control and anti–PD-L1/anti–PD-1–treated mice in each syngeneic model. Asterisks denote statistical significance at the P ≤ 0.05 (*) and P ≤ 0.01 (**) level.

Figure 6.

Stk11/Lkb1 ablation directly promotes primary resistance to PD-L1/PD-1 blockade in immunocompetent murine models of Kras-mutant LUAC. Stk11/Lkb1-proficient/deficient isogenic derivatives of the LKR13 (A) and LKR10 (B) cell lines were used in preclinical experiments. Changes in mean (main panels) and individual (inset panels) subcutaneous tumor volume following treatment with (A) anti–PD-L1 (mIgG1-D265AFc clone 80) or IgG control antibody (LKR13/LKR13KO isogenic pair) and (B) anti–PD-1 mAb (clone RMPI-14; BioXCell) or isotype control antibody (clone 2A3; BioXCell; LKR10/LKR10KO isogenic pair) are graphed. Error bars represent SEM. Mean tumor volume plots are depicted from the time of randomization to the time that the first mouse in any of the two treatment arms was sacrificed. Spider plots indicate individual tumor volume trajectories for the entire duration of the in vivo experiment (25 days for the LKR13/LKR13KO and 39 days for the LKR10/LKR10KO model). Note that PD-1/PD-L1 blockade blunts the in vivo growth of Stk11/Lkb1-proficient Kras-mutant LUAC, whereas Stk11/Lkb1 knockout renders tumors recalcitrant to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare mean tumor volumes between IgG control and anti–PD-L1/anti–PD-1–treated mice in each syngeneic model. Asterisks denote statistical significance at the P ≤ 0.05 (*) and P ≤ 0.01 (**) level.

Close modal

In this study, we identify genomic alterations in STK11/LKB1 as a tumor cell–intrinsic determinant of primary resistance to PD-1 axis blockade in three independent retrospective cohorts of KRAS-mutant LUAC, a fourth cohort of PD-L1–positive NSCLC regardless of KRAS status, as well as in patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC treated with nivolumab in the pivotal CheckMate-057 randomized phase III clinical trial. Somatic mutations in STK11/LKB1 are prevalent in LUAC (16.7% in the large FM cohort), particularly among KRAS-mutant tumors (25.4% in the combined FM/SU2C cohort) and foster establishment of a non-T cell–inflamed tumor immune microenvironment with frequently undetectable tumor cell PD-L1 expression (18, 20, 21). Furthermore, we show that genetic ablation of Stk11/Lkb1 directly promotes resistance to anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 therapy in two immunocompetent Kras-mutant LUAC murine models. Therefore, STK11/LKB1 inactivation represents a major driver of immune escape and innate resistance to PD-1 blockade in KRAS-mutant LUAC.

Our work demonstrates that alterations in STK11/LKB1 are associated with lack of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells across multiple independent cohorts, despite the presence of intermediate or high TMB. This finding is consistent with lower densities of infiltrating CD8+ CTLs in both human and murine STK11/LKB1-deficient tumors. However, the negative impact of STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations on clinical response to PD-1 axis inhibitors also extends to PD-L1–positive NSCLC, indicating that it is at least partially independent of PD-L1 expression. In addition, in an exploratory analysis among PD-L1–negative KRAS-mutant LUAC, KP tumors exhibited more favorable response to PD-L1 blockade, with partial response/stable disease achieved in 7 of 10 patients. Therefore, analysis of STK11/LKB1 and TP53 comutations may help refine response prediction algorithms in both PD-L1 positive and negative tumors as well as in cases where tumor biopsy for assessment of PD-L1 expression is unavailable or impractical but profiling of circulating tumor DNA (liquid biopsy) has been obtained.

It is important to note that nonmutational mechanisms may also account for STK11/LKB1 inactivation in a subset of LUAC (19). Quantitative IHC for STK11/LKB1 can capture STK11/LKB1-deficient tumors in the absence of STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations (26). Therefore, evaluation of LKB1 expression by IHC may further enhance the predictive utility of a composite biomarker panel encompassing PD-L1 expression, TMB, and STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations.

Although our study primarily examined clinical response to PD-1 axis inhibitors in KRAS-mutant tumors, we anticipate that the effect of STK11/LKB1 inactivation extends to the entire LUAC population, regardless of KRAS status. This hypothesis is supported by (i) poor ORR and shorter PFS and OS with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in STK11/LKB1-mutant tumors in a cohort of PD-L1–positive NSCLC encompassing both KRAS-mutant and wild-type tumors; (ii) shorter time on PD-1 inhibitor in a separate cohort of patients with STK11/LKB1-altered TMBI/H tumors; and (iii) evidence of a “cold” immune microenvironment in STK11/LKB1-altered LUAC irrespective of KRAS status, and was further proposed in a recent separate study (30). However, application to the wider population of nonsquamous NSCLC will require further validation in larger datasets.

The mechanistic basis of T-cell exclusion in STK11/LKB1-deficient tumors is under active investigation and did not constitute a focus of the current study. However, based on established and emergent STK11/LKB1 functions, a number of possibilities are proposed including altered cytokine/chemokine milieu (20), metabolic restriction of effector T cells (31), or impaired antigenicity, possibly as a result of STK11/LKB1-dependent changes in the epigenetic landscape of tumor cells (32). In a set of elegant in vivo experiments, inducible expression of MYC in KrasG12D-driven murine lung adenomas triggered rapid expulsion of CD3+ T lymphocytes [as well as B cells and natural killer (NK) cells] from the tumor microenvironment via induction of IL23 and CCL9 (33). STK11/LKB1 loss has been reported to promote transcriptional upregulation of MYC via the MZF1 transcription factor (34). In a colorectal cancer murine isograft model, T-cell exclusion and suppression of Th1 cell differentiation were mediated by TGFβ signaling (35), which has also been shown to be subject to modulation by STK11/LKB1 (36). Furthermore, loss of PTEN, which, similar to STK11/LKB1 alterations, results in mTOR pathway activation, has been associated with impaired CD8+ T-cell recruitment in melanoma (37). In this tumor type, prior seminal work highlighted active WNT/β-catenin signaling as a key molecular driver of the non-T cell–inflamed phenotype, via ATF3-mediated suppression of CCL4 production and impaired recruitment of CD103+ dendritic cells to the tumor immune microenvironment (29); interestingly, STK11/LKB1 deficiency has previously been associated with WNT pathway activation (38). Finally, it was recently demonstrated that tumor cell–derived prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) can also impair recruitment of conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1) to the tumor microenvironment both directly, through downregulation of chemokine receptor expression in cDC1, and indirectly, via attenuation of NK-cell viability and function (39). It was previously reported that expression of COX2, which catalyzes the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins, is enhanced in STK11/LKB1-deficient NSCLC cells via activated CRTC1 (40). Thus, multiple and potentially nonoverlapping mechanisms may underpin establishment and maintenance of a “cold” tumor immune microenvironment in STK11/LKB1-deficient NSCLC, and further work is required to elucidate nodal downstream effectors and signaling cascades.

Delineation of pathways and mechanisms of immune escape downstream of STK11/LKB1 inactivation is also critical in order to inform rational combination therapeutic approaches aimed at invigorating antitumor immunity. Several strategies to convert non-T cell–inflamed tumors into T cell–inflamed tumors have been proposed and are undergoing preclinical and clinical evaluation, including activation of innate immune recognition with STING agonists, TLR agonists, ionizing radiation, or expression of LIGHT in tumor cells (41–44). Such approaches, as well as efforts that tackle specific STK11/LKB1 loss–dependent immunosuppressive cascades, will require prospective evaluation in patients with STK11/LKB1–deficient NSCLC.

In contrast, evidence of preexisting CD8+ T-cell infiltrate and adaptive immune resistance in the majority of KP (and possibly K-only STK11/LKB1-proficient) tumors supports simultaneous targeting of multiple immune inhibitory pathways in this subgroup (42).

Taken together, our data reveal a novel, frequent driver of de novo resistance to PD-1 blockade in KRAS-mutant LUAC and potentially the entire LUAC population. More broadly, somatic genomic alterations in individual genes may modulate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in given tumor types and across tumor types. Although the fully integrated set of determinants of response to these agents is not yet completely defined, our results suggest that the development of tailored immunotherapy approaches for NSCLC may be facilitated by genomic profiling to allow simultaneous characterization of specific somatic alterations including KRAS, STK11/LKB1, and TP53, in addition to TMB and PD-L1 expression.

Patients

Patients with stage IV KRAS-mutant LUAC who received at least one cycle of PD-1 inhibitor therapy or combined PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA4 blockade, were alive for ≥14 days thereafter, and had available molecular profiling of KRAS, STK11/LKB1, and TP53 were identified by retrospective electronic medical record review. Three independent cohorts were studied from members of the Stand Up To Cancer/American Cancer Society Lung Cancer Translational Research Dream Team: MDACC, MSKCC, and a combined cohort from DFCI/MGH, cumulatively forming the SU2C cohort. A fourth cohort of 66 patients with PD-L1–positive (≥1%) nonsquamous NSCLC (regardless of KRAS status) from MDACC with available tumor molecular profiling was assessed to determine the impact of STK11/LKB1 genomic alterations on clinical outcomes with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy specifically in PD-L1–positive tumors. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. All participating patients at each institution provided written informed consent for the collection of clinical, demographic, and molecular data as well as the use of tissue for IHC and molecular studies, which proceeded in accordance with IRB-approved protocols at each of the participating institutions.

A fifth independent cohort of 44 patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC (24 treated with nivolumab and 20 treated with docetaxel) with available STK11/LKB1 and TP53 mutational status and tumor cell PD-L1 expression from the CheckMate-057 (CM-057) international phase III randomized controlled trial (NCT01673867) was also analyzed (45).

Finally, a separate large cohort of 924 unselected patients with LUAC who submitted samples to FM for hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) were included in an integrated analysis of TMB, PD-L1 expression, and genomic alterations of individual cancer-related genes. Duration of therapy (“time on drug”) was known for a subset of patients with CGP that received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Approval for this study, including a waiver of informed consent and a HIPAA waiver of authorization, was obtained from the Western Institutional Review Board (protocol no. 20152817).

Study Assessments

Tumor response was assessed by dedicated thoracic radiologists (MDACC, MSKCC, DFCI) or the study investigators (MGH) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECISTv1.1). ORR was defined as the percentage of patients achieving a confirmed or unconfirmed complete or partial response. Attribution of stable disease as best overall response to therapy required a minimum interval of ≥30 days between the first day of the first cycle of treatment (C1D1) and radiologic evaluation. Patients who died before radiologic reassessment were deemed to have progressive disease. PFS was defined as the time from C1D1 to the date of disease progression or death from any cause. OS was defined as the time from C1D1 to the date of death from any cause. Efficacy endpoints for patients included in CM-057 were evaluated as described previously (45).

In the SU2C cohort, tumor cell PD-L1 expression was assessed in the most recent preimmunotherapy formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor biopsy tissue at each institution using the PD-L1 E1L3N XP rabbit mAb (Cell Signaling Technology), and quantified as the percent of tumor cell membranes exhibiting specific staining of any intensity. PD-L1 expression in CM-057 samples was assessed using the Validated 28-8 pharmDx Assay (Dako; ref. 3). PD-L1 staining of tumor samples submitted to FM was performed using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay. Tumors were characterized as PD-L1 negative (PD-L1 < 1%), low positive (1% ≤ PD-L1 < 50%), or high positive (PD-L1 ≥ 50%). Assessment of PD-L1 expression in the separate cohort from MDACC (N = 66) was based on the FDA-approved 22C3 pharmDx assay (Dako).

Molecular Profiling Platforms and Study Group Definitions

CGP of tumor and/or circulating cell-free tumor DNA utilized CLIA-certified assays available in each of the participating institutions (46–51). Samples from CM-057 underwent WES according to previously described methodology (4). Samples submitted to Foundation Medicine were processed at a CLIA-certified laboratory as described previously (52). TMB was measured by Foundation Medicine as described previously (53). Raw TMB values were measured in units of mutations per Mb and characterized as low (TMB < 6), intermediate (6 ≤ TMB < 20), or high (TMB ≥ 20).

KRAS-mutant LUAC bearing nonsynonymous somatic mutations in STK11/LKB1 and/or mono- or biallelic loss of the STK11/LKB1 locus were denoted as KL. KRAS-mutant LUAC harboring nonsynonymous somatic mutations in TP53 and/or mono- or biallelic loss of the TP53 locus were classified as KP. KRAS-mutant tumors with intact STK11/LKB1 and TP53 were referred to as K-only (these tumors include a multitude of additional genetic alterations in addition to mutant KRAS). Triple-mutant tumors (KRAS;TP53;STK11) were classified as KL (18). In CM-057 tumors bearing nonsynonymous somatic mutations in STK11/LKB1 were denoted as KL. In the FM cohort, a KRAS-mutant LUAC sample was considered altered in STK11/LKB1 (KL) or TP53 (KP), if there was detection of a known nonsynonymous somatic mutation, any truncating alteration, or biallelic loss.

Preclinical Studies

LKR10/LKR10KO or LKR13/LKR13KO Kras-mutant murine LUAC cells (2 × 106) were injected subcutaneously into the right flank of syngeneic recipient male mice (129Sv genetic background). Mice bearing tumors ≥ 200 mm3 were randomly assigned to intraperitoneal treatment with: (i) six doses of 200 μg anti–PD-1 (clone RMPI-14; BioXCell) or isotype control antibody (clone 2A3; BioXCell) administered twice weekly (n = 5–8 mice per group; LKR10/LKR10KO isogenic system) or (ii) six doses of 200 μg anti–PD-L1 (mIgG1-D265AFc clone 80) or IgG control antibody administered twice weekly (n = 8–9 mice per group; LKR13/LKR13KO isogenic system). Tumor caliper measurements were obtained twice weekly. Mice were sacrificed when tumor volume reached 1,500 mm3 (LKR10/LKR10KO) or 2,000 mm3 (LKR13/LKR13KO) or when moribund. Single-cell suspension was established from excised tumors using a commercially available Tumor Dissociation Kit (Miltenyi Biotec) and the gentleMACS Dissociator (Miltenyi Biotec), and cell suspensions were prepared corresponding to 40 mg of gross tumor per 100 μL 1 × PBS/0.05 mmol/L EDTA. One hundred microliters of cell suspension per sample was stained with an antibody cocktail including CD3-FITC (clone 17A2), CD4-PerCP55 (clone RM4-5), CD8-PECy7 (clone 53-6.7), CD45-AF700 (clone 30-F11), CD11b-FITC (clone M1/70), Ly-6G-PerCP/Cy5.5 (clone 1A8), and Zombie dye according to the manufacturer's protocol (BioLegend). Cells were analyzed using the BD FACSCanto multicolor flow cytometer and BD FACSDIVA software. The animal study was approved by the MD Anderson Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. The LKR13 and LKR10 murine cell lines were generously provided by Dr. Tyler Jacks in 2005. All cell lines tested negative for Mycoplasma in March 2017 using the MycoAlert Mycoplasma Detection Kit (Lonza, LT-07-118). Cells were used in in vivo experiments within 10 passages from thawing.

Statistical Analysis

The significance of the association between the KL, KP, and K-only subgroup allocations and objective response to PD-1 axis blockade was assessed using the Fisher exact test. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate PFS and OS. For the analysis of PFS, data for patients who were alive and had no evidence of disease progression at the time of the PFS data lockout (December 31, 2016) or who were lost to follow-up were censored at the time of the last radiologic tumor assessment. For the analysis of OS, data for patients who were alive or lost to follow-up at the time of the OS data lockout (April 25, 2017) were censored at the time of the last documented patient contact. Analysis of both PFS and OS in the separate cohort of PD-L1–positive patients from MDACC was based on a January 15, 2018 data lockout. Differences between groups in PFS and OS were assessed on the basis of the log-rank test. Bonferroni-adjusted P values were employed to account for multiple comparisons. HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs were computed using the Cox proportional hazards model. The Wald test was applied for testing the HR of 1. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons, unless stated otherwise.

Analysis of clinical endpoints in CM-057 was conducted as previously described and corresponds to a February 18, 2016, database lock (45).

For TMB and PD-L1 analysis, statistics were calculated using R version 3.3.2 (2016-10-31). The enrichment analysis for LUAC in the PD-L1/TMB landscape was limited to genes altered in >1% of samples (100 genes).

F. Skoulidis has received speakers bureau honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. M.E. Goldberg has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine, Inc. M.D. Hellmann is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Mirati, and Shattuck Labs. M.M. Awad reports receiving a commercial research grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb and is a consultant/advisory board member for Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. J.F. Gainor is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Ariad/Takeda, Loxo, Array Biopharma, Amgen, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, and Theravance. R.J. Hartmaier has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine. L. Gay has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine, Inc. S.M. Ali is a Scientific Advisory Board member at Incsysus. J.A. Elvin has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine, Inc. G. Singal has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine. J.S. Ross has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine. S. Kirov has ownership interest (including patents) in Bristol-Myers Squibb. J. Szustakowski has ownership interest (including patents) in Bristol-Myers Squibb. S.-H.I. Ou is a consultant/advisory board member for Foundation Medicine. N. Peled has received speakers bureau honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, and Guardant360 and is a consultant/advisory board member for Guardant, Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Guardant360, AZ, and BI. M. Nishino reports receiving a Merck investigator studies program grant to institution, a Toshiba Medical Systems research grant to institution, and an AstraZeneca research grant to institution; is a consultant/advisory board member for WorldCare Clinical, Toshiba Medical Systems, and Daiichi Sankyo; and has received honoraria from Roche and Bayer. J.L. Sauter has ownership interest (including patents) in Merck. J. Zhang is a consultant/advisory board member for AstraZeneca. V.A. Miller is on the Board of Directors at Revolution Medicines and has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine and Revolution Medicines. G.M. Frampton has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine. J.D. Wolchok reports receiving a commercial research grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb and is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medimmune, and Genentech. P.A. Jänne reports receiving commercial research grants from Astellas Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and PUMA; has ownership interest (including patents) in LabCorp; and is a consultant/advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Pfizer, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Chugai, LOXO Oncology, Ignyta, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals. P.J. Stephens has ownership interest (including patents) in FMI. C.M. Rudin is a consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Harpoon. L.A. Albacker has ownership interest (including patents) in Foundation Medicine Inc. J.V. Heymach is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genentech, EMD Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, Lilly, Novartis, and GSK. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: F. Skoulidis, M.E. Goldberg, D.M. Greenawalt, J.A. Elvin, J.S. Ross, D. Fabrizio, P.M. Szabo, H. Chang, J. Szustakowski, R. Edwards, N. Sharma, N. Peled, B.W. Carter, W.L. Denning, K.-K. Wong, P.J. Stephens, W.J. Geese, L.A. Albacker, J.V. Heymach

Development of methodology: F. Skoulidis, M.E. Goldberg, M.D. Hellmann, R.J. Hartmaier, L. Gay, J.A. Elvin, J.S. Ross, D. Fabrizio, P.M. Szabo, H. Chang, S. Kirov, P. Vitazka, N. Peled, B.W. Carter, H. Hamdi, J. Rodriguez-Canales, N. Kalhor, A.A. Jungbluth, G.M. Frampton, L.A. Albacker, J.V. Heymach

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): F. Skoulidis, M.E. Goldberg, M.D. Hellmann, M.M. Awad, J.F. Gainor, A.B. Schrock, J.A. Elvin, J.S. Ross, D. Fabrizio, H. Chang, P. Vitazka, J.A. Bufill, N. Sharma, S.-H.I. Ou, N. Peled, H. Rizvi, J. Erasmus, D.F. Halpenny, A.J. Plodkowski, M. Nishino, W.L. Denning, A. Galan-Cobo, H. Hamdi, T. Hirz, J. Rodriguez-Canales, N. Kalhor, A.A. Jungbluth, M. Mino-Kenudson, R. Azimi, Y.Y. Elamin, V.A. Papadimitrakopoulou, I.I. Wistuba, G.M. Frampton, A.T. Shaw, P.A. Jänne, C.M. Rudin, W.J. Geese, L.A. Albacker, J.V. Heymach

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): F. Skoulidis, M.E. Goldberg, D.M. Greenawalt, M.D. Hellmann, M.M. Awad, J.F. Gainor, A.B. Schrock, R.J. Hartmaier, S.E. Trabucco, S.M. Ali, J.A. Elvin, G. Singal, J.S. Ross, D. Fabrizio, P.M. Szabo, H. Chang, A. Sasson, S. Srinivasan, S. Kirov, J. Szustakowski, N. Peled, D.R. Spigel, B.W. Carter, A.J. Plodkowski, N.M. Long, M. Nishino, P. Tong, J. Wang, P.A. Villalobos, E.R. Parra, N. Kalhor, L.M. Sholl, J.L. Sauter, M. Mino-Kenudson, J. Zhang, F. Jiang, K.-K. Wong, J.J. Lee, V.A. Papadimitrakopoulou, V.A. Miller, G.M. Frampton, J.D. Wolchok, A.T. Shaw, P.J. Stephens, C.M. Rudin, W.J. Geese, L.A. Albacker, J.V. Heymach

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: F. Skoulidis, M.E. Goldberg, D.M. Greenawalt, M.D. Hellmann, M.M. Awad, J.F. Gainor, A.B. Schrock, L. Gay, S.M. Ali, J.A. Elvin, G. Singal, J.S. Ross, D. Fabrizio, P.M. Szabo, H. Chang, J. Szustakowski, R. Edwards, N. Sharma, S.-H.I. Ou, N. Peled, D.R. Spigel, E.J. Aguilar, B.W. Carter, J. Erasmus, D.F. Halpenny, A.J. Plodkowski, N.M. Long, M. Nishino, E.R. Parra, L.M. Sholl, J.L. Sauter, M. Mino-Kenudson, J. Zhang, K.-K. Wong, J.J. Lee, V.A. Papadimitrakopoulou, I.I. Wistuba, V.A. Miller, G.M. Frampton, J.D. Wolchok, A.T. Shaw, P.A. Jänne, P.J. Stephens, C.M. Rudin, W.J. Geese, L.A. Albacker, J.V. Heymach

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): M.E. Goldberg, G. Singal, J.S. Ross, H. Chang, E.J. Aguilar, A.J. Plodkowski, J.L. Sauter, G.C. Leonardi, J.V. Heymach

Study supervision: J.S. Ross, H. Chang, L.A. Albacker, J.V. Heymach

We thank the patients and their families who participated in this study. We would also like to thank Dr. Patrick Hwu for critical review of the manuscript and Emily Roarty for editorial assistance. This research was supported by a Stand Up To Cancer - American Cancer Society Lung Cancer Dream Team Translational Research Grant (grant number: SU2C-AACR-DT17-15). Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) is a program of the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Research grants are administered by the American Association for Cancer Research, the scientific partner of SU2C. Research was also supported by a Sabin Family Foundation Fellowship (to F. Skoulidis), a Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation Scholar Award (to F. Skoulidis), the Jane Ford-Petrin Fund, the Gil and Dody Weaver Foundation, the Bill and Katie Weaver Charitable Trust, a Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas Multi-Investigator Research Award (RP160652; to J.V. Heymach), 1R01 CA205150 (to J.V. Heymach), a V Foundation Translational Award (to J.V. Heymach), generous philanthropic contributions to The University of Texas MD Anderson Lung Cancer Moonshots Program, Lung SPORE grant 5 P50 CA070907, MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA016672, MSKCC Core Grant P30 CA008748, and 1R01 CA203636 (M. Nishino).

1.
Garon
EB
,
Rizvi
NA
,
Hui
R
,
Leighl
N
,
Balmanoukian
AS
,
Eder
JP
, et al
Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2015
;
372
:
2018
28
.
2.
Herbst
RS
,
Baas
P
,
Kim
DW
,
Felip
E
,
Perez-Gracia
JL
,
Han
JY
, et al
Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2016
;
387
:
1540
50
.
3.
Borghaei
H
,
Paz-Ares
L
,
Horn
L
,
Spigel
DR
,
Steins
M
,
Ready
NE
, et al
Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2015
;
373
:
1627
39
.
4.
Carbone
DP
,
Reck
M
,
Paz-Ares
L
,
Creelan
B
,
Horn
L
,
Steins
M
, et al
First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2017
;
376
:
2415
26
.
5.
Langer
CJ
,
Gadgeel
SM
,
Borghaei
H
,
Papadimitrakopoulou
VA
,
Patnaik
A
,
Powell
SF
, et al
Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study
.
Lancet Oncol
2016
;
17
:
1497
508
.
6.
Rittmeyer
A
,
Barlesi
F
,
Waterkamp
D
,
Park
K
,
Ciardiello
F
,
von Pawel
J
, et al
Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2017
;
389
:
255
65
.
7.
Fehrenbacher
L
,
Spira
A
,
Ballinger
M
,
Kowanetz
M
,
Vansteenkiste
J
,
Mazieres
J
, et al
Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2016
;
387
:
1837
46
.
8.
Brahmer
J
,
Reckamp
KL
,
Baas
P
,
Crino
L
,
Eberhardt
WE
,
Poddubskaya
E
, et al
Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2015
;
373
:
123
35
.
9.
Topalian
SL
,
Taube
JM
,
Anders
RA
,
Pardoll
DM
. 
Mechanism-driven biomarkers to guide immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2016
;
16
:
275
87
.
10.
Tumeh
PC
,
Harview
CL
,
Yearley
JH
,
Shintaku
IP
,
Taylor
EJ
,
Robert
L
, et al
PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance
.
Nature
2014
;
515
:
568
71
.
11.
Herbst
RS
,
Soria
JC
,
Kowanetz
M
,
Fine
GD
,
Hamid
O
,
Gordon
MS
, et al
Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients
.
Nature
2014
;
515
:
563
7
.
12.
Reck
M
,
Rodriguez-Abreu
D
,
Robinson
AG
,
Hui
R
,
Csoszi
T
,
Fulop
A
, et al
Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2016
;
375
:
1823
33
.
13.
Rizvi
NA
,
Hellmann
MD
,
Snyder
A
,
Kvistborg
P
,
Makarov
V
,
Havel
JJ
, et al
Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer
.
Science
2015
;
348
:
124
8
.
14.
Snyder
A
,
Makarov
V
,
Merghoub
T
,
Yuan
J
,
Zaretsky
JM
,
Desrichard
A
, et al
Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2014
;
371
:
2189
99
.
15.
Van Allen
EM
,
Miao
D
,
Schilling
B
,
Shukla
SA
,
Blank
C
,
Zimmer
L
, et al
Genomic correlates of response to CTLA-4 blockade in metastatic melanoma
.
Science
2015
;
350
:
207
11
.
16.
Imielinski
M
,
Berger
AH
,
Hammerman
PS
,
Hernandez
B
,
Pugh
TJ
,
Hodis
E
, et al
Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing
.
Cell
2012
;
150
:
1107
20
.
17.
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network
. 
Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma
.
Nature
2014
;
511
:
543
50
.
18.
Skoulidis
F
,
Byers
LA
,
Diao
L
,
Papadimitrakopoulou
VA
,
Tong
P
,
Izzo
J
, et al
Co-occurring genomic alterations define major subsets of KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma with distinct biology, immune profiles, and therapeutic vulnerabilities
.
Cancer Discov
2015
;
5
:
860
77
.
19.
Shackelford
DB
,
Shaw
RJ
. 
The LKB1-AMPK pathway: metabolism and growth control in tumour suppression
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2009
;
9
:
563
75
.
20.
Koyama
S
,
Akbay
EA
,
Li
YY
,
Aref
AR
,
Skoulidis
F
,
Herter-Sprie
GS
, et al
STK11/LKB1 deficiency promotes neutrophil recruitment and proinflammatory cytokine production to suppress T-cell activity in the lung tumor microenvironment
.
Cancer Res
2016
;
76
:
999
1008
.
21.
Kadara
H
,
Choi
M
,
Zhang
J
,
Parra
ER
,
Rodriguez-Canales
J
,
Gaffney
SG
, et al
Whole-exome sequencing and immune profiling of early-stage lung adenocarcinoma with fully annotated clinical follow-up
.
Ann Oncol
2017
;
28
:
75
82
.
22.
Yu
HA
,
Sima
CS
,
Shen
R
,
Kass
S
,
Gainor
J
,
Shaw
A
, et al
Prognostic impact of KRAS mutation subtypes in 677 patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinomas
.
J Thorac Oncol
2015
;
10
:
431
7
.
23.
Arbour
KC
,
Jordan
E
,
Kim
HR
,
Dienstag
J
,
Yu
HA
,
Sanchez-Vega
F
, et al
Effects of co-occurring genomic alterations on outcomes in patients with KRAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2018
;
24
:
334
40
.
24.
Bonanno
L
,
De Paoli
A
,
Zulato
E
,
Esposito
G
,
Calabrese
F
,
Favaretto
A
, et al
LKB1 expression correlates with increased survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab
.
Clin Cancer Res
2017
;
23
:
3316
24
.
25.
Facchinetti
F
,
Bluthgen
MV
,
Tergemina-Clain
G
,
Faivre
L
,
Pignon
JP
,
Planchard
D
, et al
LKB1/STK11 mutations in non-small cell lung cancer patients: descriptive analysis and prognostic value
.
Lung Cancer
2017
;
112
:
62
8
.
26.
Kim
J
,
Hu
Z
,
Cai
L
,
Li
K
,
Choi
E
,
Faubert
B
, et al
CPS1 maintains pyrimidine pools and DNA synthesis in KRAS/LKB1-mutant lung cancer cells
.
Nature
2017
;
546
:
168
72
.
27.
Tang
H
,
Xiao
G
,
Behrens
C
,
Schiller
J
,
Allen
J
,
Chow
CW
, et al
A 12-gene set predicts survival benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
1577
86
.
28.
Kaufman
JM
,
Yamada
T
,
Park
K
,
Timmers
CD
,
Amann
JM
,
Carbone
DP
. 
A transcriptional signature identifies LKB1 functional status as a novel determinant of MEK sensitivity in lung adenocarcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2017
;
77
:
153
63
.
29.
Spranger
S
,
Bao
R
,
Gajewski
TF
. 
Melanoma-intrinsic beta-catenin signalling prevents anti-tumour immunity
.
Nature
2015
;
523
:
231
5
.
30.
Rizvi
H
,
Sanchez-Vega
F
,
La
K
,
Chatila
W
,
Jonsson
P
,
Halpenny
D
, et al
Molecular determinants of response to anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 and anti-programmed death-ligand (PD-L)-ligand 1 blockade in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer profiled with targeted next-generation sequencing
.
J Clin Oncol
2018
;
36
:
633
41
.
31.
Chang
CH
,
Qiu
J
,
O'Sullivan
D
,
Buck
MD
,
Noguchi
T
,
Curtis
JD
, et al
Metabolic competition in the tumor microenvironment is a driver of cancer progression
.
Cell
2015
;
162
:
1229
41
.
32.
Kottakis
F
,
Nicolay
BN
,
Roumane
A
,
Karnik
R
,
Gu
H
,
Nagle
JM
, et al
LKB1 loss links serine metabolism to DNA methylation and tumorigenesis
.
Nature
2016
;
539
:
390
5
.
33.
Kortlever
RM
,
Sodir
NM
,
Wilson
CH
,
Burkhart
DL
,
Pellegrinet
L
,
Brown Swigart
L
, et al
Myc cooperates with Ras by programming inflammation and immune suppression
.
Cell
2017
;
171
:
1301
15
.
34.
Tsai
LH
,
Wu
JY
,
Cheng
YW
,
Chen
CY
,
Sheu
GT
,
Wu
TC
, et al
The MZF1/c-MYC axis mediates lung adenocarcinoma progression caused by wild-type lkb1 loss
.
Oncogene
2015
;
34
:
1641
9
.
35.
Tauriello
DVF
,
Palomo-Ponce
S
,
Stork
D
,
Berenguer-Llergo
A
,
Badia-Ramentol
J
,
Iglesias
M
, et al
TGFbeta drives immune evasion in genetically reconstituted colon cancer metastasis
.
Nature
2018
;
554
:
538
43
.
36.
Moren
A
,
Raja
E
,
Heldin
CH
,
Moustakas
A
. 
Negative regulation of TGFbeta signaling by the kinase LKB1 and the scaffolding protein LIP1
.
J Biol Chem
2011
;
286
:
341
53
.
37.
Peng
W
,
Chen
JQ
,
Liu
C
,
Malu
S
,
Creasy
C
,
Tetzlaff
MT
, et al
Loss of PTEN promotes resistance to T cell-mediated immunotherapy
.
Cancer Discov
2016
;
6
:
202
16
.
38.
Liu
W
,
Monahan
KB
,
Pfefferle
AD
,
Shimamura
T
,
Sorrentino
J
,
Chan
KT
, et al
LKB1/STK11 inactivation leads to expansion of a prometastatic tumor subpopulation in melanoma
.
Cancer Cell
2012
;
21
:
751
64
.
39.
Bottcher
JP
,
Bonavita
E
,
Chakravarty
P
,
Blees
H
,
Cabeza-Cabrerizo
M
,
Sammicheli
S
, et al
NK cells stimulate recruitment of cDC1 into the tumor microenvironment promoting cancer immune control
.
Cell
2018
;
172
:
1022
37
.
40.
Cao
C
,
Gao
R
,
Zhang
M
,
Amelio
AL
,
Fallahi
M
,
Chen
Z
, et al
Role of LKB1-CRTC1 on glycosylated COX-2 and response to COX-2 inhibition in lung cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2015
;
107
:
358
.
41.
Gajewski
TF
. 
The next hurdle in cancer immunotherapy: overcoming the non-T-cell-inflamed tumor microenvironment
.
Semin Oncol
2015
;
42
:
663
71
.
42.
Gajewski
TF
,
Schreiber
H
,
Fu
YX
. 
Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment
.
Nat Immunol
2013
;
14
:
1014
22
.
43.
Tang
H
,
Wang
Y
,
Chlewicki
LK
,
Zhang
Y
,
Guo
J
,
Liang
W
, et al
Facilitating T cell infiltration in tumor microenvironment overcomes resistance to PD-L1 blockade
.
Cancer Cell
2016
;
30
:
500
.
44.
Corrales
L
,
Glickman
LH
,
McWhirter
SM
,
Kanne
DB
,
Sivick
KE
,
Katibah
GE
, et al
Direct activation of STING in the tumor microenvironment leads to potent and systemic tumor regression and immunity
.
Cell Rep
2015
;
11
:
1018
30
.
45.
Horn
L
,
Spigel
DR
,
Vokes
EE
,
Holgado
E
,
Ready
N
,
Steins
M
, et al
Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: two-year outcomes from two randomized, open-label, phase III trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057)
.
J Clin Oncol
2017
;
35
:
3924
33
.
46.
Meric-Bernstam
F
,
Brusco
L
,
Shaw
K
,
Horombe
C
,
Kopetz
S
,
Davies
MA
, et al
Feasibility of large-scale genomic testing to facilitate enrollment onto genomically matched clinical trials
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
2753
62
.
47.
Wagle
N
,
Berger
MF
,
Davis
MJ
,
Blumenstiel
B
,
Defelice
M
,
Pochanard
P
, et al
High-throughput detection of actionable genomic alterations in clinical tumor samples by targeted, massively parallel sequencing
.
Cancer Discov
2012
;
2
:
82
93
.
48.
Zehir
A
,
Benayed
R
,
Shah
RH
,
Syed
A
,
Middha
S
,
Kim
HR
, et al
Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients
.
Nat Med
2017
;
23
:
703
13
.
49.
Zheng
Z
,
Liebers
M
,
Zhelyazkova
B
,
Cao
Y
,
Panditi
D
,
Lynch
KD
, et al
Anchored multiplex PCR for targeted next-generation sequencing
.
Nat Med
2014
;
20
:
1479
84
.
50.
Lanman
RB
,
Mortimer
SA
,
Zill
OA
,
Sebisanovic
D
,
Lopez
R
,
Blau
S
, et al
Analytical and clinical validation of a digital sequencing panel for quantitative, highly accurate evaluation of cell-free circulating tumor DNA
.
PLoS One
2015
;
10
:
e0140712
.
51.
Lih
CJ
,
Harrington
RD
,
Sims
DJ
,
Harper
KN
,
Bouk
CH
,
Datta
V
, et al
Analytical validation of the next-generation sequencing assay for a nationwide signal-finding clinical trial: molecular analysis for therapy choice clinical trial
.
J Mol Diag
2017
;
19
:
313
27
.
52.
Frampton
GM
,
Fichtenholtz
A
,
Otto
GA
,
Wang
K
,
Downing
SR
,
He
J
, et al
Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing
.
Nat Biotechnol
2013
;
31
:
1023
31
.
53.
Chalmers
ZR
,
Connelly
CF
,
Fabrizio
D
,
Gay
L
,
Ali
SM
,
Ennis
R
, et al
Analysis of 100,000 human cancer genomes reveals the landscape of tumor mutational burden
.
Genome Med
2017
;
9
:
34
.

Supplementary data