Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying the Expanding Landscape of Clinical Actionability for Patients with Cancer

Open access
Suehnholz, Sarah P., Nissan, Moriah H., Zhang, Hongxin, Kundra, Ritika, Nandakumar, Subhiksha, Lu, Calvin, Carrero, Stephanie, Dhaneshwar, Amanda, Fernandez, Nicole, Xu, Benjamin W., Arcila, Maria E., Zehir, Ahmet, Syed, Aijazuddin, Brannon, A. Rose, Rudolph, Julia E., Paraiso, Eder, Sabbatini, Paul J., Levine, Ross L., Dogan, Ahmet, Gao, Jianjiong, Ladanyi, Marc, Drilon, Alexander, Berger, Michael F., Solit, David B., Schultz, Nikolaus, Chakravarty, Debyani·2024·Cancer Discovery

Abstract

There is a continuing debate about the proportion of cancer patients that benefit from precision oncology, attributable in part to conflicting views as to which molecular alterations are clinically actionable. To quantify the expansion of clinical actionability since 2017, we annotated 47,271 solid tumors sequenced with the MSK-IMPACT clinical assay using two temporally distinct versions of the OncoKB knowledge base deployed 5 years apart. Between 2017 and 2022, we observed an increase from 8.9% to 31.6% in the fraction of tumors harboring a standard care (level 1 or 2) predictive biomarker of therapy response and an almost halving of tumors carrying nonactionable drivers (44.2% to 22.8%). In tumors with limited or no clinical actionability, TP53 (43.2%), KRAS (19.2%), and CDKN2A (12.2%) were the most frequently altered genes. Significance: Although clear progress has been made in expanding the availability of precision oncology-based treatment paradigms, our results suggest a continued unmet need for innovative therapeutic strategies, particularly for cancers with currently undruggable oncogenic drivers. See related commentary by Horak and Fröhling, p. 18. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 5

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/2159-8290.cd-23-0467

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Suehnholz, S. P., Nissan, M. H., Zhang, H., Kundra, R., Nandakumar, S., Lu, C., Carrero, S., Dhaneshwar, A., Fernandez, N., Xu, B. W., Arcila, M. E., Zehir, A., Syed, A., Brannon, A. R., Rudolph, J. E., Paraiso, E., Sabbatini, P. J., Levine, R. L., Dogan, A., Gao, J., Ladanyi, M., Drilon, A., Berger, M. F., Solit, D. B., Schultz, N., & Chakravarty, D.
Venue
Cancer Discovery
Published
2023-10-17
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
49-65
ISSN
  • 2159-8274 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-8290
OpenAlex
W4387728976
Cited by
401
References
50
FWCI
40.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantifying the Expanding Landscape of Clinical Actionability for Patients with Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/2159-8290.cd-23-0467
The paper
Suehnholz, S. P., Nissan, M. H., Zhang, H., Kundra, R., Nandakumar, S., Lu, C., Carrero, S., Dhaneshwar, A., Fernandez, N., Xu, B. W., Arcila, M. E., Zehir, A., Syed, A., Brannon, A. R., Rudolph, J. E., Paraiso, E., Sabbatini, P. J., Levine, R. L., Dogan, A., . . . Chakravarty, D. (2024). Quantifying the Expanding Landscape of Clinical Actionability for Patients with Cancer. Cancer Discovery. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.cd-23-0467

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.