Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40080755›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2025

Generalized Evolutionary Classifier for Evolutionary Guided Precision Medicine.

Matthew McCoy, Chen-Hsiang Yeang, Shaymaa Bahnassy, Stanley Tam, Rebecca B Riggins, Deepak Parashar, Robert A Beckman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthew McCoyDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and Innovation Center for Biomedical Informatics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0001-7601-6963
Chen-Hsiang YeangInstitute of Statistical Science, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-9224-5800
Shaymaa BahnassyDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0001-9882-4195
Stanley TamDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-9338-436X
Rebecca B RigginsDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-1555-4431
Deepak ParasharDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School & Warwick Cancer Research Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1280-3663
Robert A BeckmanDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and Innovation Center for Biomedical Informatics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0003-0098-9210

Funding

TRAINING GRANT IN TUMOR BIOLOGYT32CA009686 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI ANNA Tate RIEGEL, DAVID J ROBBINS · 1996 to 2026
$10.8M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009686
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCurrent precision medicine (CPM) matches patients to therapies using traditional biomarkers, but inevitably resistance develops. Dynamic precision medicine (DPM) is a new evolutionary guided precision medicine (EGPM) approach undergoing translational development. It tracks intratumoral genetic heterogeneity and evolutionary dynamics, adapts as frequently as every 6 weeks, plans proactively for future resistance development, and incorporates multiple therapeutic agents. Simulations indicated DPM can significantly improve long-term survival and cure rates in a cohort of 3 million virtual patients representing a variety of clinical scenarios. Given the cost and invasiveness of monitoring subclones frequently, we sought to determine the value of a short DPM window of only two 6-week adaptations (moves).

methodsIn a new simulation, nearly 3 million virtual patients, differing in DPM input parameters of initial subclone compositions, drug sensitivities, and growth and mutational kinetics, were simulated as previously described. Each virtual patient was treated with CPM, DPM, and DPM for two moves followed by CPM.

resultsThe first two DPM moves provide similar average benefit to a 5-year, 40-move sequence in the full virtual population. If the first two moves are identical for DPM and CPM, patients will not benefit from DPM (65% negative predictive value). A patient subset (20%) in which 2-move DPM and 40-move DPM provide closely similar outcomes has extraordinary predicted benefit (hazard ratio of DPM/CPM 0.03).

conclusionThe first two DPM moves provide most of the clinical benefit of DPM, reducing the duration required for subclone monitoring. This also leads to an evolutionary classifier selecting patients who will benefit: those in whom DPM and CPM recommendations differ early. These advances bring DPM (and potentially other EGPM approaches) closer to potential clinical testing.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPrecision MedicineComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID40080755
PMCPMC11922188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.