Genomic biomarkers for immunotherapy response in pediatric solid tumors

Year 2026, Volume: 40 Issue: 1, 15 - 26, 28.01.2026

Safiye Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.18614/dehm.1873512

https://izlik.org/JA57XJ68FF

Abstract

Immunotherapy is an increasingly popular treatment strategy offering hope for many cancers. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has just approved the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treating malignancies in both adults and children. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been more successful in treating adult cancers than in pediatric cancers. Adult tumors have a higher tumor mutation burden (TMB) than pediatric tumors. The level of microsatellite instability (MSI) in adult tumors is greater than in pediatric solid tumors due to DNA-mismatch deficiency. TMB in tumors correlates with MSI. TMB and MSI analysis are genomic biomarkers for immune checkpoint blockade response in tumors. TMB and MSI analyses have been used in clinical practice to predict which patients are candidates for immunotherapy. This review evaluates the use of TMB and MSI analysis to predict the immunotherapy response of pediatric tumors.

Keywords

Biomarker , immunotheraphy , microsatellite instability , pediatric solid tumors , tumor mutation burden.

References

• 1. Childhood cancer [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 4]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer-in-children
• 2. Lupo PJ, Spector LG. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Childhood Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev Publ Am Assoc Cancer Res Cosponsored Am Soc Prev Oncol. 2020 Jun;29(6):1081–94.
• 3. Huang J, Chan SC, Ngai CH, Lok V, Zhang L, Lucero-Prisno III DE, et al. Global incidence, mortality and temporal trends of cancer in children: A joinpoint regression analysis. Cancer Med. 2023;12(2):1903–11.
• 4. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 24]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/
• 5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022 Jan;72(1):7–33.
• 6. Childhood Cancer Epidemiology: Overview, Tools of Study, Cancer Incidence. 2023 Sep 21 [cited 2023 Oct 14]; Available from: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/989841-overview?form=fpf
• 7. LaQuaglia MP, Gerstle JT. ADVANCES IN THE TREATMENT OF PEDIATRIC SOLID TUMORS: A 50 YEAR PERSPECTIVE. J Surg Oncol. 2022 Oct;126(5):933–42.
• 8. Zahnreich S, Schmidberger H. Childhood Cancer: Occurrence, Treatment and Risk of Second Primary Malignancies. Cancers. 2021 May 26;13(11):2607.
• 9. Shalita C, Hanzlik E, Kaplan S, Thompson EM. Immunotherapy for the treatment of pediatric brain tumors: a narrative review. Transl Pediatr. 2022 Dec;11(12):2040–56.
• 10. Schilter KF, Smith BA, Nie Q, Stoll K, Felix JC, Jarzembowski JA, et al. Analytical validation and implementation of a pan cancer next-generation sequencing panel, CANSeqTMKids for molecular profiling of childhood malignancies. Front Genet [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 14];14. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1067457
• 11. Kulubya ES, Kercher MJ, Phillips HW, Antony R, Edwards MSB. Advances in the Treatment of Pediatric Brain Tumors. Children. 2022 Dec 27;10(1):62.
• 12. Hiemenz MC, Ostrow DG, Busse TM, Buckley J, Maglinte DT, Bootwalla M, et al. OncoKids: A Comprehensive Next-Generation Sequencing Panel for Pediatric Malignancies. J Mol Diagn JMD. 2018 Nov;20(6):765–76.
• 13. Cipri S, Abenavoli L, Boccuto L, Del Baldo G, Mastronuzzi A. How Genetics and Genomics Advances Are Rewriting Pediatric Cancer Research and Clinical Care. Medicina (Mex). 2022 Oct 2;58(10):1386.
• 14. Surrey LF, MacFarland SP, Chang F, Cao K, Rathi KS, Akgumus GT, et al. Clinical utility of custom-designed NGS panel testing in pediatric tumors. Genome Med. 2019 May 28;11:32.
• 15. Gröbner SN, Worst BC, Weischenfeldt J, Buchhalter I, Kleinheinz K, Rudneva VA, et al. The landscape of genomic alterations across childhood cancers. Nature. 2018 Mar 15;555(7696):321–7.
• 16. Budczies J, Allgäuer M, Litchfield K, Rempel E, Christopoulos P, Kazdal D, et al. Optimizing panel-based tumor mutational burden (TMB) measurement. Ann Oncol. 2019 Sep 1;30(9):1496–506.
• 17. Bornhorst M, Hwang EI. Molecularly Targeted Agents in the Therapy of Pediatric Brain Tumors. Pediatr Drugs. 2020 Feb 1;22(1):45–54.
• 18. Bosse KR, Giudice AM, Lane MV, McIntyre B, Schürch PM, Pascual-Pasto G, et al. Serial Profiling of Circulating Tumor DNA Identifies Dynamic Evolution of Clinically Actionable Genomic Alterations in High-Risk Neuroblastoma. Cancer Discov. 2022 Dec 2;12(12):2800–19.
• 19. Schramm A, Köster J, Assenov Y, Althoff K, Peifer M, Mahlow E, et al. Mutational dynamics between primary and relapse neuroblastomas. Nat Genet. 2015 Aug;47(8):872–7.
• 20. Palmeri M, Mehnert J, Silk AW, Jabbour SK, Ganesan S, Popli P, et al. Real-world application of tumor mutational burden-high (TMB-high) and microsatellite instability (MSI) confirms their utility as immunotherapy biomarkers. ESMO Open. 2022 Feb 1;7(1):100336.
• 21. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, Zhou S, Diaz LA, Kinzler KW. Cancer Genome Landscapes. Science. 2013 Mar 29;339(6127):1546–58.
• 22. Chen X, Bahrami A, Pappo A, Easton J, Dalton J, Hedlund E, et al. Recurrent Somatic Structural Variations Contribute to Tumorigenesis in Pediatric Osteosarcoma. Cell Rep. 2014 Apr 10;7(1):104–12.
• 23. Dougherty MJ, Santi M, Brose MS, Ma C, Resnick AC, Sievert AJ, et al. Activating mutations in BRAF characterize a spectrum of pediatric low-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncol. 2010 Jul;12(7):621–30.
• 24. Korshunov A, Ryzhova M, Hovestadt V, Bender S, Sturm D, Capper D, et al. Integrated analysis of pediatric glioblastoma reveals a subset of biologically favorable tumors with associated molecular prognostic markers. Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 2015 May;129(5):669–78.