Back

High clinical utility of comprehensive multi-omic molecular profiling of rare and hard-to-diagnose pediatric tumors

Sullivan, A. J.; Khuong-Quang, D.-A.; Villani, A.; Wong-Erasmus, M.; Trinder, S.; Lau, L. M. S.; Barahona, P.; Altekoester, A.-K.; Rumford, M.; Dias, K.; Mayoh, C.; Fuentes-Bolanos, N. A.; Courtney, E. K.; El-Kamand, S.; Cui, L.; Lin, A.; Davidson, S.; Yuki, K. E.; Sanders, N.; Staunton, J.; Jessop, S.; Sriharan, S.; Alvaro, F.; Anazodo, A.; Bhatia, K.; Campbell, M.; Foresto, S.; Gottardo, N. G.; Kirby, M.; Khaw, S. L.; Manoharan, N.; McCowage, G.; Moore, A. S.; Nicholls, W.; O'Connor, M.; Padhye, B.; Ryan, A. L.; Super, L.; Wood, P. J.; Davies, J.; D'Arcy, C.; Gifford, A. J.; Rodriguez, M.; T

2026-07-29 oncology
10.64898/2026.07.25.26358936 medRxiv
Show abstract

The role of comprehensive genomic profiling for therapeutic decision-making is established in high-risk pediatric cancers, but its utility in rare and diagnostically challenging tumors is unclear. Here we report 123 non-high-risk patients enrolled in the Australian ZERO Childhood Cancer Program for diagnostic uncertainty, clinician request to address a specific molecular query, or other rare tumors. Comprehensive multi-omic profiling led to a change in diagnosis in 17.9% (22/123) of patients, with overall diagnostic utility in 35% (43/123). Molecular queries were resolved in 97.6% (40/41). Multi-omic results informed conventional management in 20.3% (25/123). Precision-guided therapy was recommended in 67.5% (83/123), and administered in 36.1% (30/83), with an objective response or prolonged (>6 months) stable disease in 88.9% of evaluable cases (16/18). Findings were confirmed in an independent cohort from the Canadian KiCS program (n=41). In conclusion, in rare and diagnostically challenging pediatric tumors, multi-omic profiling improved diagnostic accuracy and informed clinical management, supporting its integration into routine care.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.