1. Clinical Genomic Profiling of a Diverse Array of Oncology Specimens at a Large Academic Cancer Center 
Anthony N. Sireci, Vimla S. Aggarwal, Andrew T. Turk, Tatyana Gindin, Mahesh M. Mansukhani, Susan J. Hsiao 
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages (March 2017)
DOI: /j.jmoldx
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1
Sequencing success rates and sample types for the CCCP assay. A: Percentages of cases that were successfully sequenced, failed sequencing, or were insufficient for sequencing. B: Percentage of cases that were successfully sequenced, failed sequencing, or were insufficient for sequencing by specimen type. FNA, fine-needle aspirate.
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics  , DOI: ( /j.jmoldx )
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2
Tumor types and variant detection in the CCCP assay. A: Tumor types tested with the CCCP assay, broken down into the following categories: lung, hematological malignancies, central nervous system (CNS), pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI; luminal GI, other than colon), melanoma, carcinoma of unknown primary, colon, bone and soft tissue, breast, gynecological (Gyn), genitourinary (GU), liver, and other (which includes neuroendocrine tumors, mesothelioma, and meningioma). B: Average number of variants reported per case, reported by tumor category. C: Twenty most recurrently mutated genes across all tumor categories, with breakdown by tumor type.
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics  , DOI: ( /j.jmoldx )
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3
Targetable variants detected by the CCCP. A: Percentage of targetable variants detected (left panel) and percentage of cases with at least one targetable variant (right panel). B: Percentage of cases with at least one targetable variant by tumor type. CNS, central nervous system; GI, gastrointestinal; GU, genitourinary; GYN, gynecological.
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics  , DOI: ( /j.jmoldx )
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions

5. Figure 4
Payer mix and average reimbursements for CPT code compared to Distribution of payers for cases coded under code (A) and the average reimbursement as a percentage of total charges for code (B). Distribution of payers for cases coded under the epidermal growth factor receptor code (C) and the average reimbursement as a percentage of total charges for code (D). n = 153 (A); n = 231 (C).
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics  , DOI: ( /j.jmoldx )
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions

6. Figure 5
Summary of rejection rates and denial reasons for CPT code compared to Payment denial rates under CCCP for (A) and summary of denial reasons provided by third-party payers for (B). Payment denial rates under epidermal growth factor receptor for (C) and summary of denial reasons provided by third-party payers for (D). n = 153 (A); n = 231 (C).
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics  , DOI: ( /j.jmoldx )
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions

7. Figure 6
Analysis of time from filing to reimbursement decision for compared to The distribution of time from invoice generation to first reimbursement decision is divided into 30-day buckets, and both epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and CCCP are depicted.
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics  , DOI: ( /j.jmoldx )
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions