Table 2.
TCGA actionable landscape in different publications
| Standard therapy | Clinical trials | Preclinical | Total | Number of TCGA samples | Databases used by the study | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Label | Off-label | Label | Off-label | Label | Off-label | ||||
| MTB | 9.9 (A1) | 22.7 (B1) | 64.1 (A2) | 89 (B2) | 90.6 (A3) | 94.1 (B3) | 94 | 3184 | GDKD, CIViC, TARGET |
| Dienstmann et al. 2015 [20] | 11 (5) | – | 39 (4) | 75 (3) | 93 (1-2) | 93 | 4392 | GDKD | |
| Rubio-Perez et al. 2015 [19] | 5.9 | 40.2 | 73.3 | – | – | 73.3 | 4068 | Rubio-Perez et al. 2015 | |
| Chakravarty et al. 2017 [18] | 7.5 (1–2A) | 16 (2B) | 26 (3A) | 41 (3B) | – | – | 41 | 5983 | OncoKB |
The table shows the cumulative percentages of patients with actionable variants identified at different levels. The name of the levels used in each publication are specified in parentheses. The studies being compared are: MTB (this publication), Chakravarty et al. 2017 [18], Dienstmann et al. 2015 [20], and Rubio-Perez et al. 2015 [19]