Identification of clinically actionable biomarkers via routine comprehensive genomic profiling across a large community health system

Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Title

Meeting Abstract | 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting I


oregon; portland; chiles; genomics


Background: Precision therapies and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer care, with novel genomic biomarker-associated therapies being introduced into clinical practice rapidly. We assessed the utility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP)-based testing for identifying biomarkers associated with approved therapies, and therapies in precision medicine basket clinical trials (CT) across a large cohort of advanced cancer patients in the Providence health system. Methods: Advanced cancer patients were tested utilizing the Providence CGP workflow between 2019-2021. Clinical actionability was assessed for CGP and compared with results from an in silico 50-gene panel based on a previously utilized lab-developed test at Providence. Clinical actionability was assessed based on OncoKB and alterations were assigned as: FDA recognized (Level 1), standard of care (Level 2), FDA approved/investigational drug in another indication or having compelling clinical evidence (Level 3). CT matching was assessed based on enrollment criteria for ASCO-TAPUR, NCI-MATCH and My Pathway CTs at time of testing. Pooled electronic medical record and genomic data were curated and standardized. Results: Of the 3,218 advanced cancer patients tested with CGP, 52% were female, 80% were white, and median age was 67 years. Across 31 tumor types, the most commonly tested were lung (26%), bowel/colon (16%), and breast (9%). Overall, 48% of patients tested with CGP harbored at least one actionable biomarker (OncoKB Levels1/2/3). Clinical actionability was significantly higher in the CGP cohort compared to the in silico cohort based on presence of at least one Level 1 biomarker (45% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). CGP cohort had higher proportion of patients with multiple/co-occurring Level 1 biomarkers compared to in silico cohort (20% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Of the most prevalent tumor types, 57% lung, 94% bowel/colon, and 37% breast had Level 1 alterations with CGP testing. Notably, 49% of CGP cohort vs. 23% in silico cohort (p < 0.001) harbored a biomarker matching to one or more arms of the three basket CTs. Conclusions: CGP and small panel testing can both identify patients eligible for approved therapies and/or basket CTs with CGP having significantly higher clinical actionability and CT eligibility. We expect value of CGP to increase as biomarker actionability transforms clinical practice.

Clinical Institute





Earle A. Chiles Research Institute