Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Usage Information

Institutional implementation of clinical tumor profiling on an unselected cancer population
Lynette M. Sholl, Khanh Do, Priyanka Shivdasani, Ethan Cerami, Adrian M. Dubuc, Frank C. Kuo, Elizabeth P. Garcia, Yonghui Jia, Phani Davineni, Ryan P. Abo, Trevor J. Pugh, Paul van Hummelen, Aaron R. Thorner, Matthew Ducar, Alice H. Berger, Mizuki Nishino, Katherine A. Janeway, Alanna Church, Marian Harris, Lauren L. Ritterhouse, Joshua D. Campbell, Vanesa Rojas-Rudilla, Azra H. Ligon, Shakti Ramkissoon, James M. Cleary, Ursula Matulonis, Geoffrey R. Oxnard, Richard Chao, Vanessa Tassell, James Christensen, William C. Hahn, Philip W. Kantoff, David J. Kwiatkowski, Bruce E. Johnson, Matthew Meyerson, Levi A. Garraway, Geoffrey I. Shapiro, Barrett J. Rollins, Neal I. Lindeman, Laura E. MacConaill
Lynette M. Sholl, Khanh Do, Priyanka Shivdasani, Ethan Cerami, Adrian M. Dubuc, Frank C. Kuo, Elizabeth P. Garcia, Yonghui Jia, Phani Davineni, Ryan P. Abo, Trevor J. Pugh, Paul van Hummelen, Aaron R. Thorner, Matthew Ducar, Alice H. Berger, Mizuki Nishino, Katherine A. Janeway, Alanna Church, Marian Harris, Lauren L. Ritterhouse, Joshua D. Campbell, Vanesa Rojas-Rudilla, Azra H. Ligon, Shakti Ramkissoon, James M. Cleary, Ursula Matulonis, Geoffrey R. Oxnard, Richard Chao, Vanessa Tassell, James Christensen, William C. Hahn, Philip W. Kantoff, David J. Kwiatkowski, Bruce E. Johnson, Matthew Meyerson, Levi A. Garraway, Geoffrey I. Shapiro, Barrett J. Rollins, Neal I. Lindeman, Laura E. MacConaill
View: Text | PDF
Clinical Research and Public Health Genetics Oncology

Institutional implementation of clinical tumor profiling on an unselected cancer population

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

BACKGROUND. Comprehensive genomic profiling of a patient’s cancer can be used to diagnose, monitor, and recommend treatment. Clinical implementation of tumor profiling in an enterprise-wide, unselected cancer patient population has yet to be reported.

METHODS. We deployed a hybrid-capture and massively parallel sequencing assay (OncoPanel) for all adult and pediatric patients at our combined cancer centers. Results were categorized by pathologists based on actionability. We report the results for the first 3,727 patients tested.

RESULTS. Our cohort consists of cancer patients unrestricted by disease site or stage. Across all consented patients, half had sufficient and available (>20% tumor) material for profiling; once specimens were received in the laboratory for pathology review, 73% were scored as adequate for genomic testing. When sufficient DNA was obtained, OncoPanel yielded a result in 96% of cases. 73% of patients harbored an actionable or informative alteration; only 19% of these represented a current standard of care for therapeutic stratification. The findings recapitulate those of previous studies of common cancers but also identify alterations, including in AXL and EGFR, associated with response to targeted therapies. In rare cancers, potentially actionable alterations suggest the utility of a “cancer-agnostic” approach in genomic profiling. Retrospective analyses uncovered contextual genomic features that may inform therapeutic response and examples where diagnoses revised by genomic profiling markedly changed clinical management.

CONCLUSIONS. Broad sequencing-based testing deployed across an unselected cancer cohort is feasible. Genomic results may alter management in diverse scenarios; however, additional barriers must be overcome to enable precision cancer medicine on a large scale.

FUNDING. This work was supported by DFCI, BWH, and the National Cancer Institute (5R33CA155554 and 5K23CA157631).

Authors

Lynette M. Sholl, Khanh Do, Priyanka Shivdasani, Ethan Cerami, Adrian M. Dubuc, Frank C. Kuo, Elizabeth P. Garcia, Yonghui Jia, Phani Davineni, Ryan P. Abo, Trevor J. Pugh, Paul van Hummelen, Aaron R. Thorner, Matthew Ducar, Alice H. Berger, Mizuki Nishino, Katherine A. Janeway, Alanna Church, Marian Harris, Lauren L. Ritterhouse, Joshua D. Campbell, Vanesa Rojas-Rudilla, Azra H. Ligon, Shakti Ramkissoon, James M. Cleary, Ursula Matulonis, Geoffrey R. Oxnard, Richard Chao, Vanessa Tassell, James Christensen, William C. Hahn, Philip W. Kantoff, David J. Kwiatkowski, Bruce E. Johnson, Matthew Meyerson, Levi A. Garraway, Geoffrey I. Shapiro, Barrett J. Rollins, Neal I. Lindeman, Laura E. MacConaill

×

Usage data is cumulative from December 2024 through December 2025.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 1,519 278
PDF 170 37
Figure 342 7
Table 295 0
Supplemental data 260 174
Citation downloads 112 0
Totals 2,698 496
Total Views 3,194
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts