Informatics framework study demonstrates an open-source common data model for solid tumors, indicating enhanced scalability and interoperability for multi-institutional precision oncology research.
Adequately powered analyses in precision oncology often require combining cohorts across institutions. Yet integration is constrained by the least granular source and may become infeasible when data elements are too heterogeneous to harmonize and map to a common data model. This challenge is acute in multi-institutional precision oncology research, where real-world evidence requires harmonized clinico-omic data integration. Existing models often lack sufficient treatment patterns, outcomes, and genomic data, limiting interoperability and scalability. To address these gaps, AACR Project GENIE™ (Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange) developed the GENIE Data Model (GDM), a comprehensive, open-source, oncology data model for scalable, consistent, and interoperable data collection across solid tumors designed to effectively capture the patient’s journey with cancer. Through iterative consensus-building, four working groups comprising 13 subject matter experts defined data elements across multiple clinical domains: patient characteristics, imaging, diagnosis, surgery, histopathology, biomarkers, systemic therapy, radiation, clinical trial history, disease response and outcomes, and social determinants of health. Elements were defined using standardized terminologies and permissible values to support mapping to HL7 FHIR, OMOP, and other existing oncology standards. The model architecture distinguishes manually abstracted elements from computationally collected elements, enabling parallel workflows. The GDM provides an extensible framework that addresses critical gaps and enables scalable, harmonized data collection essential for precision oncology and real-world evidence generation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoppe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: