Skip to content
Datasets/HCMI-CMDC

NCI Cancer Model Development for the Human Cancer Model Initiative

Underused opportunityMixedProject-curated
HCMIAvailable from GDC and IDC

805 next-generation cancer models - organoids and other patient-derived systems - with whole genome sequencing on 804 and the matched patient tumor, spanning many rare cancers.

Can it answer your research question?

4 of 6 supported
  • Overall survival

    Supported

    Vital status and time are populated; median follow-up 1.3 years; 544 cases with follow-up; endpoints: overall survival, progression-free interval.API

  • Progression or recurrence

    Supported

    A time to event is derivable: progression-free interval; progression_or_recurrence is informative for 65% of cases.API

  • Treatment response

    Supported

    disease_response is populated for 61% of cases; criteria: complete response, cr-complete response.API

  • Which drug was given

    Supported

    therapeutic_agents is recorded for 56% of cases.API

  • Stage-adjusted modelling

    Limited

    ajcc_pathologic_stage is informative for 41% of cases.API

  • Analysis by race or ethnicity

    Limited

    Race is informative for 45% of cases.API

Judged from the repository’s own field completeness (thresholds). “Not measured” means we have not probed that field for this record, not that the data lack it.

At a glance

Every percentage is the repository’s own record of what is filled in
CasesAPI2
805
Measurement types
10
43,662 files, 288 TB
Follow-upAPI
15.8 months
for 544 of 805 cases; overall survival, progression-free interval
Treatment responseAPI
Recorded
complete response, cr-complete response, pd-progressive disease

SubjectCALC

Pan-cancer

As filed by the repository

Ductal and Lobular NeoplasmsComplex Mixed and Stromal NeoplasmsBlood Vessel TumorsFibromatous NeoplasmsEpithelial Neoplasms, NOSMature T- and NK-Cell LymphomasTransitional Cell Papillomas and CarcinomasComplex Epithelial NeoplasmsSquamous Cell NeoplasmsSoft Tissue Tumors and Sarcomas, NOSLymphoid LeukemiasCystic, Mucinous and Serous Neoplasms

Who is in the cohortAPI

A usable value“Not reported” or “unknown”No value recorded
  • Sex454 male · 351 female
  • Race295 white · 38 black or african american · 30 asian · 1 1 other · 226 not reported · 215 unknown
  • Ethnicity329 not hispanic or latino · 21 hispanic or latino · 231 unknown · 224 not reported
  • Vital status290 alive · 187 dead · 299 not reported · 29 unknown

Age at diagnosis

Median 64, middle half 54–72, range 0–90 years across 565 cases.

What was measured, and on how many

10 measurement types, 1 covering the whole cohort.

  • Clinical805 of 805 · 100%
  • Whole genome sequencing804 of 805 · >99%
  • Bulk RNA sequencing781 of 805 · 97%
  • Whole exome sequencing721 of 805 · 90%
  • DNA methylation array703 of 805 · 87%
  • Copy Number Variation590 of 805 · 73%
  • Somatic Structural Variation590 of 805 · 73%
  • microRNA sequencing520 of 805 · 65%
  • Whole-slide tissue images382 of 805 · 47%
  • DICOM medical imaging382 of 805 · 47%
Platform, files and data levels
AssayPlatformFilesLevels
ClinicalAPI-805-
Whole genome sequencingAPIillumina11,357-
Bulk RNA sequencingAPIillumina10,375-
Whole exome sequencingAPIillumina14,470-
DNA methylation arrayAPIillumina3,066-
Copy Number VariationAPI-2,687-
Somatic Structural VariationAPI-2,237-
microRNA sequencingAPIillumina2,466-
Whole-slide tissue imagesAPIillumina810-
DICOM medical imagingAPI--DICOM series
How complete all 29 clinical fields are - 8 informative for at least 80% of cases

A field counts as informative only when it holds a real value. “Not reported” blocks an analysis just as a missing field does. Fields marked 1:n can hold several records per case, so they show the share of cases with any record.

Informative - a usable valuePresent but uninformative - “not reported” or “unknown”Absent - no value recorded

Outcome

  • Vital statusAPI59%
  • Cause of deathAPI21%
  • Progression or recurrenceAPI0%
  • Last known disease statusAPI0%

Follow-up

  • Progression at follow-up1:nAPI65%
  • Disease response at follow-upAPI52%
  • ECOG performance statusAPI1%

Treatment

  • Treatment given1:nAPI100%
  • Prior treatmentAPI89%
  • Treatment type1:nAPI76%
  • Therapeutic agents1:nAPI56%
  • Regimen or line of therapyAPI18%
  • Treatment outcomeAPI15%

Staging

  • AJCC pathologic stageAPI41%
  • AJCC clinical stageAPI28%

Diagnosis

  • Primary diagnosis1:nAPI100%
  • Tissue or organ of originAPI>99%
  • Prior malignancyAPI74%
  • Synchronous malignancyAPI25%

Pathology

  • Morphology (ICD-O)1:nAPI100%
  • Classification of tumor1:nAPI100%
  • Tumor gradeAPI61%

Demographics

  • Sex at birthAPI100%
  • RaceAPI45%
  • EthnicityAPI44%
  • Population groupAPI0%
  • Country of residenceAPI0%

Exposure

  • Tobacco smoking statusAPI87%
  • Alcohol historyAPI0%

Access

MixedSome components are open; others need approval.API

Data Access Request through dbGaP using an eRA Commons account; institutional signing official approval required

Open components
11,166 open-access files
Controlled components
32,496 controlled-access files
Typical turnaround
days to a few weeks after signing official approval
License
NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy terms
Citation requirement
Cite the dataset accession and the program's publication guidelines; see the GDC publication policy.

What it is good for

Written and checked by a reviewer, not generated from metadata.

  1. 1. How faithfully do patient-derived models retain the genomics of their source tumor?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 721HUMAN

    Models and their source tumors are both characterized, with near-complete whole genome coverage, which makes fidelity measurable rather than assumed. The answer determines how much any model-based result should be trusted.

    Statistical note: Verify model and source tumor pairing per case; it is not uniform.

    NeedsWhole genome sequencingBulk RNA sequencingModel system
  2. 2. Can a usable model system be found for a rare cancer that currently has none?

    Answerable as shippedn ≈ 805HUMAN

    Coverage spans many tumor types including rare ones. For a researcher working on a cancer with no established cell line, this is often the only route to any model at all, and it is the cohort's most practically valuable use.

    Statistical note: Per-tumor-type counts are small; this is model discovery, not a powered comparison.

    NeedsModel systemWhole genome sequencing
  3. 3. Does prior treatment of the donor shape the derived model's biology?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 716HUMAN

    Prior treatment is informative for 88.9% of donors and treatment given is recorded for all, so models derived from treated and untreated patients can be compared - a question with direct bearing on how model-based drug screens should be interpreted.

    NeedsWhole genome sequencingBulk RNA sequencingTreatment recordsdiagnoses.prior_treatmentdiagnoses.treatments.treatment_type

What it cannot tell you

Written by a reviewer against the source, not inferred from what is missing.

MajorMissing dataHUMAN

Vital status is informative for 59.3% of cases and follow-up is derivable for 544 of 805. Progression and last known disease status are empty for all cases.

Affects: Survival analysis; Progression-free endpoints

Mitigation: Use the cohort for model characterization rather than for clinical outcome questions.

MajorPopulation coverageHUMAN

Race is not reported or unknown for 441 of 805 cases, over half the cohort, which undermines any claim that the model collection represents diverse populations.

Affects: Ancestry-aware model selection; Disparities research

Mitigation: Genetic ancestry can be estimated from the germline data, subject to consent terms.

MajorAnnotation qualityHUMAN

These are model systems. Culture adaptation selects for growth-competent clones, so model genomics diverge from the source tumor over passage.

Affects: Direct clinical inference from model results

Mitigation: Record and report passage number; prefer early-passage models.

MajorStatistical powerHUMAN

Spread across many tumor types, per-type counts are small.

Affects: Type-specific comparison

Mitigation: Treat as a model catalog rather than a cohort study.

MajorAccess constraintHUMAN

A large share of the 43,662 files are controlled access.

Affects: Sequence-level analysis

Mitigation: Submit a dbGaP request.

Not appropriate for

  • Survival analysis. - Vital status is informative for 59% of cases, and progression is absent entirely.HUMAN
  • Treating model results as clinical evidence. - Models are experimental systems; translational claims require clinical validation this resource does not contain.HUMAN

Who has used it

Articles that analyzed these data, counted separately from articles that only cited the paper. Only the first counts as reuse.

Analyzed the dataCALC2
6
accession in the methods section
Declared using it
1
named in a data availability statement
Cited the paper
-
attention to the publication, not reuse of the data
Against expectation
Well below
about 40 articles expected; index -2.54

What articles did with it

Only the last row counts as reuse. Where the accession appears in an article tells us what the authors did with the data.

  • Mentioned the dataset0
  • Accession found in text6
  • Declared using it1
  • Analyzed the data6

Against comparable datasets

6 articles analyzed these data. About 40 would be expected. The expectation comes from a model of size, age, breadth and access tier.

  • Analyzed it6
  • Expected~40
More articles are listed below than the count
The headline count is deliberately narrow: one section of one accession (METHODS:"phs001486"), so every dataset in the corpus is counted the same way and the numbers can be compared. The 10 articles listed below were retrieved and graded one at a time, and an article counts as having analyzed the data wherever the accession sits in the analysis - methods, results, tables, figures or supplement - under any of this dataset’s accessions. Read the list as the evidence about these articles, and the count as the number that is comparable across datasets.
Why this is an underused opportunity
  • 6 article(s) reference this dataset's accession in a methods section, against 39.8 predicted for datasets of comparable size, age, modality breadth and access tier (reuse gap index -2.54 on a log2 scale, 4th percentile of the assessed corpus).

Compared against 132 datasets in this corpus with a citable accession and sufficient metadata. See Methods for the model.

Articles that analyzed the data

Examples, not the full list. 16 articles matching this dataset's accession search were retrieved and graded individually; these are the strongest of those.

Deep-review sample: author overlap and funding were checked only for the 10 articles listed here, not for every article examined. Of the 10 that analyzed the data, author overlap with the generating team could not be checked for any of them, and 3 of the 10 we could check were themselves NCI-funded. These are sample counts, not population estimates.

Community examples

Share your example

Analyses someone ran on these data end to end, each with a receipt recording when it ran, against which packages and for how long.

advanced

Which cohorts have both imaging and molecular data on the same patients, and how many patients actually carry both?

Join the same patients across two NCI repositories

CD2S workbooks · ran 21 Sept 2026
pythonabout two minutesexecuted
Required inputs
  • Open GDC and IDC APIs, no account required
  • pandas
Expected outputs
  • Patient-level intersection between a GDC project and an IDC collection
  • Counts of molecular-only, imaging-only and joined patients
  • A map of every cohort present in both repositories
  • A chart comparing molecular and imaging patient counts per linkable cohort
Steps
  1. Retrieve patient identifiers from the GDC project
  2. Query IDC's public SQL endpoint for the collection's patient identifiers
  3. Intersect on the shared barcode and quantify the overlap
  4. Sweep every GDC project against every IDC collection

Start here

Starter code generated from this record’s own identifiers, then the access steps.

Get the data in code

GDC: list open files and download thempython

Open-access files need no account. Controlled files need an approved dbGaP request and a token passed to gdc-client.

import json, requests

PROJECT = "HCMI-CMDC"
filters = {"op": "and", "content": [
    {"op": "in", "content": {"field": "cases.project.project_id", "value": [PROJECT]}},
    {"op": "in", "content": {"field": "access", "value": ["open"]}},
]}
params = {"filters": json.dumps(filters),
          "fields": "file_id,file_name,data_category,data_type,file_size",
          "size": "10000", "format": "JSON"}
files = requests.get("https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/files", params=params, timeout=60).json()["data"]["hits"]
print(len(files), "open files")

# Write a manifest and fetch with the GDC client (https://gdc.cancer.gov/access-data/gdc-data-transfer-tool)
with open("manifest.txt", "w") as fh:
    fh.write("id\n" + "\n".join(f["file_id"] for f in files))
# $ gdc-client download -m manifest.txt
GDC: clinical table for every casepython
import json, requests

filters = {"op": "in", "content": {"field": "project.project_id", "value": ["HCMI-CMDC"]}}
params = {"filters": json.dumps(filters), "size": "5000", "format": "TSV",
          "fields": ",".join([
              "submitter_id", "demographic.vital_status", "demographic.days_to_death",
              "diagnoses.days_to_last_follow_up", "diagnoses.ajcc_pathologic_stage",
              "diagnoses.treatments.treatment_type", "diagnoses.treatments.treatment_outcome"])}
tsv = requests.get("https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/cases", params=params, timeout=60).text
open("HCMI-CMDC_clinical.tsv", "w").write(tsv)
IDC: pull the DICOM collection with idc-indexpython

pip install idc-index. Images are public; the package uses s5cmd under the hood.

from idc_index import IDCClient

COLLECTION = "hcmi_cmdc"
client = IDCClient()

series = client.index[client.index["collection_id"] == COLLECTION]   # one row per DICOM series
print(len(series), "series,", series["PatientID"].nunique(), "patients,",
      round(series["series_size_MB"].sum() / 1024, 1), "GB")
print(series["Modality"].value_counts().to_dict())

# Everything above is an index lookup and costs nothing. Uncomment to pull the pixels;
# the client refuses up front if the disk cannot hold them.
# client.download_from_selection(collection_id=COLLECTION, downloadDir="./hcmi_cmdc")
This page as data: limitations firstbash
curl -s https://cd2s.vercel.app/data/datasets/gdc-hcmi-cmdc.json | python3 -c '
import json, sys
r = json.load(sys.stdin)
for l in r["limitations"]:
    print(l["severity"].upper(), "-", l["statement"][:120])
print("survival endpoint:", r["longitudinal"]["has_survival_endpoint"], "| treatment response:", r["longitudinal"]["has_treatment_response"])'

Access steps

  1. 1
    Search the model catalog for your tumor typeFor people1 hour
    https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/projects/HCMI-CMDC
  2. 2
    Check model availability through the HCMI Searchable CatalogFor people1 hour

    The data describe models; obtaining the physical model is a separate step.

    https://ocg.cancer.gov/programs/HCMI
  3. 3
    Submit a dbGaP data access request for sequence dataFor peopledays to a few weeks

    Requires: eRA Commons account, institutional signing official approval

    https://gdc.cancer.gov/access-data/obtaining-access-controlled-data
  4. 4
    Query the project from code, with no credentialsFor agents

    The file index is public even where files are not, so an agent can size the cohort before anyone requests access.

    curl -s 'https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/files' --get \
      --data-urlencode 'filters={"op":"in","content":{"field":"cases.project.project_id","value":["HCMI-CMDC"]}}' \
      --data-urlencode 'fields=file_id,file_name,data_type' \
      --data-urlencode 'size=10000' --data-urlencode 'format=TSV'
    https://docs.gdc.cancer.gov/API/Users_Guide/Getting_Started/

    Generated from repository policy. Check the linked policy before downloading.

  5. 5
    Pass the token when the agent needs controlled filesFor agents

    Without a token, an API query may return only the open subset. Compare returned counts with the record before treating them as the whole cohort.

    Requires: GDC authentication token

    curl -H "X-Auth-Token: $GDC_TOKEN" https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/data/<file_id>
    https://docs.gdc.cancer.gov/API/Users_Guide/Getting_Started/

    Generated from repository policy. Check the linked policy before downloading.

Provenance

All of it, and more, is in this record’s JSON.

Identifiers

Versions and verification

Released
1 Jan 2022
Metadata retrieved
18 Sept 2026
Review status
Project-curatedCD2S project curation on 18 Sept 2026
Data generation funding
Funded data generation

Funding

Awards resolved through NIH RePORTER. Awards that paid to generate these data are listed apart from awards that paid to reuse them. Both are returns on NCI investment, but different ones.

Funded reuse of these data

  • R01CA292376Functional and molecular characterization of Oncofetal Stem Cells in CRCSlim MzoughiFY2024-2026API
  • R01CA272485Triggering a New Cancer Cell Death Mechanism in SarcomaScott DixonFY2023-2026API
  • K08CA230220Targeting casein kinase 1-alpha for cancer therapySteven Muntean CorselloFY2018-2022API

Funded infrastructure or harmonization

  • U01CA238475Predictive Modeling of the EGFR-MAPK pathway for Triple Negative Breast Cancer PatientsTimothy C Elston, CHARLES M PEROUFY2019-2023API
  • P50CA058223SPORE in Breast CancerLISA A CAREY, Gaorav P. GuptaFY1992-2026API
  • P30CA045508Cancer Research Training and Education Coordination CoreLloyd C Trotman, NICHOLAS K TONKSFY1987-2026API
  • P01CA013106Project 2: Splicing Dysregulation in CancerAdrian R Krainer, Camila dos SantosFY1985-2026API
  • P30CA196521The Tisch Cancer Institute - Cancer Center Support GrantRamon E Parsons, Nina BhardwajFY2015-2026API
  • P30CA124435Leadership, Planning and EvaluationSTEVEN E ARTANDI, MANISHA DESAIFY2007-2026API

For softwarerecord JSON