Skip to content
Datasets/MP2PRT-ALL

Molecular Profiling to Predict Response to Treatment for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Underused opportunityMixedProject-curated
MP2PRTAvailable from GDC

1,510 children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia from Children's Oncology Group trials, with whole genome sequencing, 8.4 years of median follow-up, and a named treatment regimen and response recorded for every single case.

Can it answer your research question?

4 of 6 supported
  • Overall survival

    Supported

    Vital status and time are populated; median follow-up 8.3 years; 1,510 cases with follow-up; endpoint: overall survival.API

  • Progression or recurrence

    Supported

    progression_or_recurrence is informative for 100% of cases.API

  • Treatment response

    Supported

    treatment_outcome is populated for 100% of cases; criteria: complete response, cr-complete response.API

  • Which drug was given

    Not supported

    therapeutic_agents is recorded for no case in the harmonized records.API

  • Stage-adjusted modelling

    Not supported

    ajcc_pathologic_stage is informative for no case in the harmonized records.API

  • Analysis by race or ethnicity

    Supported

    Ethnicity is informative for 97% 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
CasesAPI
1,510
Measurement types
6
60,831 files, 541 TB
Follow-upAPI
8.3 years
for 1,510 of 1,510 cases; overall survival
Treatment responseAPI
Recorded
complete response, cr-complete response, partial response

SubjectCALC

Lymphoid

As filed by the repository

Acute Lymphoblastic LeukemiaLymphoid LeukemiasHematopoietic and reticuloendothelial systems

Who is in the cohortAPI

A usable value“Not reported” or “unknown”No value recorded
  • Sex850 male · 660 female
  • Race1,169 white · 89 black or african american · 54 asian · 8 2 other · 190 unknown
  • Ethnicity1,128 not hispanic or latino · 333 hispanic or latino · 49 unknown
  • Vital status1,133 alive · 136 dead · 241 unknown

Age at diagnosis

Median 4, middle half 3–6, range 1–29 years across 1,510 cases.

What was measured, and on how many

6 measurement types, 1 covering the whole cohort.

  • Whole exome sequencing1,494 of 1,510 · 99%
  • Bulk RNA sequencing1,479 of 1,510 · 98%
  • Whole genome sequencing1,507 of 1,510 · >99%
  • Clinical1,510 of 1,510 · 100%
  • Copy Number Variation1,504 of 1,510 · >99%
  • Somatic Structural Variation1,504 of 1,510 · >99%
Platform, files and data levels
AssayPlatformFilesLevels
Whole exome sequencingAPIillumina23,471-
Bulk RNA sequencingAPIillumina13,311-
Whole genome sequencingAPIillumina24,046-
ClinicalAPI-3-
Copy Number VariationAPI-5,994-
Somatic Structural VariationAPI-6,019-
How complete all 29 clinical fields are - 12 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 statusAPI84%
  • Cause of deathAPI0%
  • Progression or recurrenceAPI0%
  • Last known disease statusAPI0%

Follow-up

  • Disease response at follow-upAPI100%
  • Progression at follow-upAPI100%
  • ECOG performance statusAPI0%

Treatment

  • Treatment outcomeAPI100%
  • Regimen or line of therapyAPI100%
  • Prior treatmentAPI0%
  • Treatment typeAPI0%
  • Treatment givenAPI0%
  • Therapeutic agentsAPI0%

Staging

  • AJCC pathologic stageAPI0%
  • AJCC clinical stageAPI0%

Diagnosis

  • Tissue or organ of originAPI100%
  • Primary diagnosisAPI>99%
  • Prior malignancyAPI0%
  • Synchronous malignancyAPI0%

Pathology

  • Morphology (ICD-O)API90%
  • Tumor gradeAPI0%
  • Classification of tumorAPI0%

Demographics

  • Sex at birthAPI100%
  • Country of residenceAPI100%
  • EthnicityAPI97%
  • RaceAPI87%
  • Population groupAPI0%

Exposure

  • Tobacco smoking statusAPI0%
  • Alcohol historyAPI0%

Access

MixedSome components are open; others need approval.

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

Open components
7,459 open-access files
Controlled components
53,372 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. Which genomic features predict failure of protocolised induction therapy in paediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 1,510HUMAN

    Treatment outcome and regimen are populated for 100% of 1,510 cases, and regimen strings name the actual protocol arm, so response can be modeled within a treatment context rather than across an uncontrolled mixture of therapies. Whole genome sequencing on 1,507 cases supports genome-wide discovery at this sample size.

    Statistical note: Complete response is the dominant outcome category in a curable disease, so the informative contrast is relapse and residual disease rather than induction failure. Expect a heavily imbalanced outcome and plan the design accordingly.

    NeedsWhole genome sequencingBulk RNA sequencingTreatment recordsdiagnoses.treatments.treatment_outcomediagnoses.treatments.regimen_or_line_of_therapy
  2. 2. Do Hispanic or Latino children carry a different genomic landscape or a different response profile, and does genomics explain any of the known outcome disparity?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 1,461HUMAN

    333 of 1,510 patients are recorded as Hispanic or Latino - both a substantial absolute number and a substantial share, which is unusual. With treatment held closer to constant by the trial protocol, the ethnicity contrast is less confounded by care access than in an observational cohort.

    Statistical note: Ethnicity is self-reported and unknown for 49 cases. Genetic ancestry can be estimated from the germline data and is the more defensible variable for biological claims; report both and do not treat them as interchangeable.

    NeedsWhole genome sequencingBulk RNA sequencingTreatment recordsdemographic.ethnicitydiagnoses.treatments.treatment_outcome
  3. 3. What are the long-term survival determinants in paediatric ALL, given follow-up that extends beyond fifteen years?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 1,268HUMAN

    Vital status is informative for 84% of cases and median follow-up is 100.2 months, so late relapse and long-term survival are genuinely observable rather than censored away. Very few genomic cohorts of this size reach this follow-up duration.

    Statistical note: 16% of cases have uninformative vital status; check whether missingness is associated with treatment arm before assuming it is uninformative censoring.

    NeedsClinical dataOutcome dataWhole genome sequencingdemographic.vital_statusdiagnoses.days_to_last_follow_up
  4. 4. How do subtype-defining fusions and copy number alterations interact with assigned risk group and delivered therapy?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 1,504HUMAN

    Structural variant and copy number calls exist for 1,504 cases, and the regimen field records the risk-stratified arm each patient received, allowing molecular subtype to be crossed with the therapy actually delivered.

    NeedsStructural variantsCopy numberTreatment records

What it cannot tell you

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

MajorMissing dataHUMAN

Despite complete treatment-outcome coverage, the descriptive treatment fields are empty: treatment type, treatment given and therapeutic agents are all at 0%. The regimen field names the protocol arm, so the therapy is recoverable from trial documentation, but individual drug exposures are not recorded per patient here.

Affects: Drug-specific exposure analysis; Cumulative dose analysis

Mitigation: Map the regimen strings onto the published COG protocol definitions to recover drug composition, and state that mapping explicitly in your methods.

MajorMissing dataHUMAN

Cause of death is not recorded for any case, so competing risks cannot be separated.

Affects: Competing-risk models; Treatment-related mortality

Mitigation: Restrict to overall survival, or obtain cause of death through the trial group.

MajorAscertainment biasHUMAN

Participants are enrolled on cooperative-group trials, which select for access to a participating center and for eligibility criteria that exclude some patients. Outcomes in trial populations are generally better than in the wider patient population.

Affects: Population-level outcome estimates; Generalization to non-trial patients

Mitigation: Frame results as applying to trial-enrolled patients.

MinorPopulation coverageHUMAN

Race is unknown for 190 of 1,510 cases, and Black or African American patients number 89, which limits race-stratified analysis even though ethnicity coverage is good.

Affects: Race-stratified subgroup analysis

Mitigation: Prefer genetic ancestry estimated from the germline data for biological claims.

MajorAccess constraintHUMAN

53,372 of 60,831 files are controlled access.

Affects: Any sequence-level analysis

Mitigation: Begin the dbGaP request early.

Not appropriate for

  • Estimating paediatric ALL incidence or population survival. - This is a trial-enrolled cohort with no population denominator.HUMAN
  • Comparing specific chemotherapy agents head to head. - Per-patient drug exposure is not recorded; only the protocol arm is. Agent-level claims would rest on assumptions about protocol adherence rather than on data.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
0
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 4 articles expected; index -2.37

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 text0
  • Declared using it1
  • Analyzed the data0

Against comparable datasets

No article has analyzed these data. About 4 would be expected. The expectation comes from a model of size, age, breadth and access tier.

  • Analyzed it0
  • Expected~4
More articles are listed below than the count
The headline count is deliberately narrow: one section of one accession (METHODS:"phs002005"), so every dataset in the corpus is counted the same way and the numbers can be compared. The 6 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
  • 0 article(s) reference this dataset's accession in a methods section, against 4.2 predicted for datasets of comparable size, age, modality breadth and access tier (reuse gap index -2.37 on a log2 scale, 7th 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

Each was retrieved and graded individually.

Deep-review sample: author overlap and funding were checked only for the 6 articles listed here, not for every article examined. Of the 6 that analyzed the data, author overlap with the generating team could not be checked for any of them, and 2 of the 4 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.

beginner

Which classes of analysis do this cohort's clinical records actually support, and which are ruled out before I request access?

Audit whether this dataset can answer your question

CD2S workbooks · ran 21 Sept 2026
pythonabout a minuteexecuted
Required inputs
  • A GDC project identifier
  • Network access to api.gdc.cancer.gov
Expected outputs
  • Per-field coverage table separating populated from informative values
  • Assay coverage as a percentage of the cohort
  • A yes/no verdict for six common analysis classes
  • A chart contrasting populated with informative coverage, field by field
Steps
  1. Fetch project summary and per-assay case counts
  2. Request facet counts for the clinical fields that gate common analyses
  3. Separate absent fields from fields populated with non-answers
  4. Flag one-to-many fields where per-case percentages cannot be inferred
  5. Retrieve case-level fields and test whether a survival endpoint is derivable
  6. Print a verdict for each analysis class
advanced

Given a research goal, which dataset should an agent choose, and what must it refuse to do with it?

Select a dataset the way an agent should

CD2S workbooks · ran 21 Sept 2026
pythonunder a minuteexecuted
Required inputs
  • The CD2S structured export
  • pandas
Expected outputs
  • Contrast between a size-ranked and a capability-ranked selection
  • A transparent fit score favoring under-used resources
  • Blocking limitations read before committing
  • A machine-readable task brief for the next step
  • A chart of the ranked fit scores with the selected cohort highlighted
Steps
  1. Load the structured index
  2. Show what a naive size-ranked selection returns
  3. Filter on measured capability rather than description
  4. Rank on fit, rewarding under-used datasets
  5. Read blocking limitations from the full record
  6. Emit a task brief including what the agent must not do

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 = "MP2PRT-ALL"
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": ["MP2PRT-ALL"]}}
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("MP2PRT-ALL_clinical.tsv", "w").write(tsv)
This page as data: limitations firstbash
curl -s https://cd2s.vercel.app/data/datasets/gdc-mp2prt-all.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
    Confirm which trial protocols the cohort draws fromFor people2-3 hours

    The regimen field contains protocol arm names. Reading the corresponding COG protocol publications is what turns those strings into an interpretable treatment variable.

  2. 2
    Scope with the 7,459 open-access filesFor people1-2 hours
    https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/projects/MP2PRT-ALL
  3. 3
    Submit a dbGaP data access requestFor 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":["MP2PRT-ALL"]}}' \
      --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 2025
Metadata retrieved
18 Sept 2026
Review status
Project-curatedCD2S project curation on 18 Sept 2026
Data generation funding
Funded data generation
Open questions from review
  • The machine-inferred primary publication for this cohort is not authoritative. The cohort derives from Children's Oncology Group trials; confirm the correct marker publication with the COG data team before citing one.

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

  • R01CA264837Biomarkers of dasatinib response and resistance in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemiaDavid T. Teachey, Jun J. YangFY2021-2025API
  • R01CA273326Tracking Therapy-Resistant Alterations in Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic LeukemiaXiaotu MaFY2022-2026API

Funded infrastructure or harmonization

  • U01CA264610Clonal Therapy for Pediatric T-cell Acute Lymphoblastic LeukemiaJun J. Yang, Jiyang YuFY2021-2025API
  • P30CA021765Cancer Biology (CBP)Douglas R. Green, Michael A DyerFY1985-2026API
  • U10CA180899Children's Oncology Group Statistics and Data CenterTODD A ALONZO, Meenakshi DevidasFY2014-2026API
  • U10CA180886COG NCTN Network Group Operations CenterDouglas S. Hawkins, Richard AplencFY2014-2026API

For softwarerecord JSON