PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 29, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology0 citations

Clinical utility analysis of a computational reasoning system on large-scale tumor genomic data.

View Full Paper
DLDóra LakatosRDRóbert DócziMKMária Kocsis-Steinbach

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate the clinical utility of the Digital Drug Assignment (DDA) system in analyzing tumor genomic data.
  • Analyzed tumor molecular profiles of 20,923 patients from the MSK-CHORD dataset using the DDA system.
  • DDA classified alterations and scored molecularly targeted agents based on a functional evidence network.
  • Evaluated the proportion of patients with at least one high-score molecularly targeted agent option.
  • 75% of tumors were associated with high-score molecularly targeted agents, while only 37% received one during treatment.
  • Average of 4.6 driver alterations per tumor (range: 1 – 45), highlighting tumor complexity.
  • Only 24% of prostate tumors and 3% of pancreatic cancer patients had on-label high-score options.

Abstract

1625 Background: Comprehensive tumor molecular testing has become routine in clinical oncology. However, interpretation of complex molecular profiles in clinical practice can be challenging and subjective. The Digital Drug Assignment (DDA) system is a knowledge-graph-based computational method that automates reasoning at the patient level and scores molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) based on the full tumor genome. This approach was predictive of relative benefit of the agents as used in the SHIVA01 trial (NPJ Precis Oncol. 2021 5:59) and in real-world setting (NPJ Precis Oncol. 2025 9:159). Here, we assessed the potential clinical utility of DDA by analyzing large-scale tumor genomic data. Methods: Tumor molecular profiles of 20,923 patients of the MSK-CHORD real-world clinicogenomic dataset (Nature. 2024 636:728-36) were processed by DDA. DDA classified all alterations and scored all associated MTAs based on a functional and pharmacological evidence network. Previous research evidenced that high-score MTAs (1000 ≦ DDA score) predict increased clinical benefit. Utility of DDA was assessed by the proportion of patients with at least one high-score MTA option associated with their molecular profiles. Results: Tumor molecular complexity is evidenced by the number of driver alterations, with an average of 4.6 (range: 1 – 45) drivers per tumor (Table). 75% of all tumors were associated with high-score MTAs, 55% had on-label options. Availability of high-score options was high in all tumor types, with the exception of prostate tumors (24%). Only 3% of pancreatic cancer patients were associated with on-label high-score MTA options. Of the patients with known MTA treatments (n = 14,168), only 37% were administered a high-score MTA during their treatment course (Table). Conclusions: Our analysis recapitulates the presence of multiple driver alterations, highlighting the need for methods like DDA that consider the totality of molecular profiles for assigning MTAs, rather than relying on identifying single ‘actionable biomarkers’. The substantial gap between the proportion of patients who did receive and those whose tumor genomes were associated with high-score MTAs indicates a strong potential for improving outcomes in precision oncology. Moreover, the proportion of high-score off-label (i.e., approved in other oncological indications) MTAs highlights the potential of DDA in drug repurposing. Tumor site Mean no. of alterations (±SD) Mean no. of drivers (±SD) HS MTAs associated* HS MTA administered* HS developmental MTAs associated* HS off-label MTAs associated* HS on-label MTAs associated* All (20,923) 9.9 (11.8) 4.6 (3.9) 75 37 74 71 55 Breast (5,164) 8.1 (8.1) 4.3 (3.4) 90 57 90 89 86 Colorectal (4,565) 13.2 (18.0) 6.0 (5.5) 69 18 67 60 46 Lung (5,932) 11.6 (10.2) 4.6 (3.2) 85 57 83 84 79 Pancreas (2,619) 6.2 (6.0) 3.6 (2.3) 86 2.5 86 86 3 Prostate (2,643) 7.4 (9.5) 3.6 (3.3) 24 6.6 21 11 7 HS: high-score. *% of patients.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lakatos et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a192ee7fab5b468c441828fhttps://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.1625
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Real-world performance of the digital drug-assignment system for precision oncology in lung cancer.2024 · 1 citations
  2. 2Abstract LB129: Clinical efficacy of computational reasoning for personalized treatment planning in a pan-cancer cohort discussed by a French multidisciplinary tumor board: A real-world experience-based analysis2026
  3. 3Abstract 7: Molecularly-informed prediction of treatment efficacy in the GENIE BPC NSCLC cohort using computational reasoning.2026
  4. 4Abstract 2719: Molecularly-informed prediction of treatment efficacy in GDSC cell line data using computational reasoning.2026
  5. 5Algorithmic precision in immune checkpoint therapy response prediction for lung cancer: Evaluating the Digital Drug Assignment model's clinical performance.2024