AI Article Synopsis

  • The text discusses the need for standardized common data models (CDMs) in precision oncology to enhance clinical decision-making through initiatives like Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), which analyze clinical-genomic data for tailored therapies.
  • The authors developed a new precision oncology core data model called Precision-DM by building on existing models like mCODE, incorporating key elements such as next-generation sequencing and variant annotations, ultimately comprising 16 profiles and 355 data elements.
  • The findings showed that Precision-DM largely overlaps with existing models (50.7% with mCODE), demonstrating better coverage of mCODE elements but much less with others, indicating it could support standardized data sharing across healthcare systems.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Precision oncology mandates developing standardized common data models (CDMs) to facilitate analyses and enable clinical decision making. Expert-opinion-based precision oncology initiatives are epitomized in Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), which process large volumes of clinical-genomic data to match genotypes with molecularly guided therapies.

Methods: We used the Johns Hopkins University MTB as a use case and developed a precision oncology core data model (Precision-DM) to capture key clinical-genomic data elements. We leveraged existing CDMs, building upon the Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements model (mCODE). Our model was defined as a set of profiles with multiple data elements, focusing on next-generation sequencing and variant annotations. Most elements were mapped to terminologies or code sets and the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR). We subsequently compared our Precision-DM with existing CDMs, including the National Cancer Institute's Genomic Data Commons (NCI GDC), mCODE, OSIRIS, the clinical Genome Data Model (cGDM), and the genomic CDM (gCDM).

Results: Precision-DM contained 16 profiles and 355 data elements. 39% of the elements derived values from selected terminologies or code sets, and 61% were mapped to FHIR. Although we used most elements contained in mCODE, we significantly expanded the profiles to include genomic annotations, resulting in a partial overlap of 50.7% between our core model and mCODE. Limited overlap was noted between Precision-DM and OSIRIS (33.2%), NCI GDC (21.4%), cGDM (9.3%), and gCDM (7.9%). Precision-DM covered most of the mCODE elements (87.7%), with less coverage for OSIRIS (35.8%), NCI GDC (11%), cGDM (26%) and gCDM (33.3%).

Conclusion: Precision-DM supports clinical-genomic data standardization to support the MTB use case and may allow for harmonized data pulls across health care systems, academic institutions, and community medical centers.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10281442PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/CCI.22.00108DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

precision oncology
16
data elements
16
data
12
data model
12
clinical-genomic data
12
nci gdc
12
oncology core
8
core data
8
decision making
8
mtb case
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!