The AACR Project GENIE is an international data-sharing consortium focused on generating an evidence base for precision cancer medicine by integrating clinical-grade cancer genomic data with clinical outcome data for tens of thousands of cancer patients treated at multiple institutions worldwide. In conjunction with the first public data release from approximately 19,000 samples, we describe the goals, structure, and data standards of the consortium and report conclusions from high-level analysis of the initial phase of genomic data. We also provide examples of the clinical utility of GENIE data, such as an estimate of clinical actionability across multiple cancer types (>30%) and prediction of accrual rates to the NCI-MATCH trial that accurately reflect recently reported actual match rates. The GENIE database is expected to grow to >100,000 samples within 5 years and should serve as a powerful tool for precision cancer medicine. Significance The AACR Project GENIE aims to catalyze sharing of integrated genomic and clinical datasets across multiple institutions worldwide, and thereby enable precision cancer medicine research, including the identification of novel therapeutic targets, design of biomarker-driven clinical trials, and identification of genomic determinants of response to therapy.

No abstract

The effectiveness of most cancer targeted therapies is short-lived. Tumors often develop resistance that might be overcome with drug combinations. However, the number of possible combinations is vast, necessitating data-driven approaches to find optimal patient-specific treatments. Here we report AstraZeneca’s large drug combination dataset, consisting of 11,576 experiments from 910 combinations across 85 molecularly characterized cancer cell lines, and results of a DREAM Challenge to evaluate computational strategies for predicting synergistic drug pairs and biomarkers. 160 teams participated to provide a comprehensive methodological development and benchmarking. Winning methods incorporate prior knowledge of drug-target interactions. Synergy is predicted with an accuracy matching biological replicates for >60% of combinations. However, 20% of drug combinations are poorly predicted by all methods. Genomic rationale for synergy predictions are identified, including ADAM17 inhibitor antagonism when combined with PIK3CB/D inhibition contrasting to synergy when combined with other PI3K-pathway inhibitors in PIK3CA mutant cells.

IMPORTANCE Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASUREMENTS Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated. RESULTS Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive Յ12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine (continued)

† People involved in the organization of the challenge. ‡ People contributing data from their institutions.§ Equal senior authors.