Uterine Corpus Endometrioid Carcinoma: Correlation between molecular cancer subtypes and selected clinical features
Maintained by TCGA GDAC Team (Broad Institute/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School)
Overview
Introduction

This pipeline computes the correlation between cancer subtypes identified by different molecular patterns and selected clinical features.

Summary

Testing the association between subtypes identified by 10 different clustering approaches and 5 clinical features across 430 patients, 34 significant findings detected with P value < 0.05.

- CNMF clustering analysis on array-based mRNA expression data identified 4 subtypes that correlate to 'AGE', 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE', 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION', and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

- Consensus hierarchical clustering analysis on array-based mRNA expression data identified 3 subtypes that correlate to 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE' and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

- 5 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'CN CNMF'. These subtypes correlate to 'Time to Death', 'AGE', 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE', and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

- 3 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'METHLYATION CNMF'. These subtypes correlate to 'Time to Death', 'AGE', 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE', and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

- CNMF clustering analysis on RPPA data identified 6 subtypes that correlate to 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'.

- Consensus hierarchical clustering analysis on RPPA data identified 6 subtypes that correlate to 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'.

- CNMF clustering analysis on sequencing-based mRNA expression data identified 3 subtypes that correlate to 'Time to Death', 'AGE', 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE', 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION', and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

- Consensus hierarchical clustering analysis on sequencing-based mRNA expression data identified 3 subtypes that correlate to 'Time to Death', 'AGE', 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE', 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION', and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

- CNMF clustering analysis on sequencing-based miR expression data identified 3 subtypes that correlate to 'Time to Death', 'AGE', 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE', and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

- Consensus hierarchical clustering analysis on sequencing-based miR expression data identified 3 subtypes that correlate to 'AGE', 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE', 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION', and 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'.

Results
Overview of the results

Table 1. Get Full Table Overview of the association between subtypes identified by 10 different clustering approaches and 5 clinical features. Shown in the table are P values from statistical tests. Thresholded by P value < 0.05, 34 significant findings detected.

Clinical Features | Time to Death | AGE | HISTOLOGICAL TYPE | RADIATIONS RADIATION REGIMENINDICATION | NEOADJUVANT THERAPY
Statistical Tests | logrank test | ANOVA | Chi-square test | Fisher's exact test | Fisher's exact test
mRNA CNMF subtypes | 0.53 | 0.0107 | 0.000456 | 0.0317 | 0.0124
mRNA cHierClus subtypes | 0.73 | 0.0598 | 0.00134 | 0.0666 | 0.0114
CN CNMF | 4.81e-05 | 3.14e-09 | 1.39e-32 | 0.107 | 0.0103
METHLYATION CNMF | 0.00798 | 0.0123 | 4.28e-17 | 0.0786 | 0.0132
RPPA CNMF subtypes | 0.114 | 0.343 | 3.91e-06 | 0.327 | 0.0533
RPPA cHierClus subtypes | 0.294 | 0.463 | 0.00421 | 0.584 | 0.157
RNAseq CNMF subtypes | 0.00873 | 0.00104 | 8.73e-18 | 0.0148 | 0.000242
RNAseq cHierClus subtypes | 0.00985 | 0.00202 | 8.69e-18 | 0.0325 | 1.45e-05
MIRseq CNMF subtypes | 0.00602 | 0.000193 | 5.4e-20 | 0.0958 | 0.00481
MIRseq cHierClus subtypes | 0.0652 | 3.03e-05 | 1.14e-13 | 0.0303 | 0.0281

Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes'

Table S1. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 13 | 19 | 14 | 8

'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.53 (logrank test)

Table S2. Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 54 | 7 | 6.0 - 133.2 (35.4)
subtype1 | 13 | 2 | 9.0 - 133.2 (39.0)
subtype2 | 19 | 3 | 6.0 - 113.2 (37.7)
subtype3 | 14 | 1 | 8.6 - 89.3 (30.9)
subtype4 | 8 | 1 | 6.4 - 65.5 (22.9)

Figure S1. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.0107 (ANOVA)

Table S3. Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 54 | 62.9 (11.8)
subtype1 | 13 | 65.1 (12.0)
subtype2 | 19 | 68.4 (9.1)
subtype3 | 14 | 58.2 (11.0)
subtype4 | 8 | 54.8 (12.9)

Figure S2. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 0.000456 (Chi-square test)

Table S4. Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 41 | 1 | 12
subtype1 | 12 | 0 | 1
subtype2 | 8 | 0 | 11
subtype3 | 13 | 1 | 0
subtype4 | 8 | 0 | 0

Figure S3. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0317 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S5. Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 25 | 29
subtype1 | 7 | 6
subtype2 | 13 | 6
subtype3 | 3 | 11
subtype4 | 2 | 6

Figure S4. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.0124 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S6. Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 18 | 36
subtype1 | 6 | 7
subtype2 | 10 | 9
subtype3 | 2 | 12
subtype4 | 0 | 8

Figure S5. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'mRNA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes'

Table S7. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3
--- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 20 | 15 | 19

'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.73 (logrank test)

Table S8. Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 54 | 7 | 6.0 - 133.2 (35.4)
subtype1 | 20 | 2 | 6.4 - 89.3 (29.8)
subtype2 | 15 | 2 | 9.0 - 133.2 (39.0)
subtype3 | 19 | 3 | 6.0 - 113.2 (37.7)

Figure S6. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.0598 (ANOVA)

Table S9. Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 54 | 62.9 (11.8)
subtype1 | 20 | 58.2 (13.3)
subtype2 | 15 | 64.0 (10.6)
subtype3 | 19 | 67.1 (9.9)

Figure S7. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 0.00134 (Chi-square test)

Table S10. Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 41 | 1 | 12
subtype1 | 19 | 1 | 0
subtype2 | 13 | 0 | 2
subtype3 | 9 | 0 | 10

Figure S8. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0666 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S11. Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 25 | 29
subtype1 | 5 | 15
subtype2 | 9 | 6
subtype3 | 11 | 8

Figure S9. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.0114 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S12. Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 18 | 36
subtype1 | 2 | 18
subtype2 | 6 | 9
subtype3 | 10 | 9

Figure S10. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'mRNA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF'

Table S13. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #3: 'CN CNMF'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 255 | 11 | 119 | 17 | 16 | 2 | 2

'CN CNMF' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 4.81e-05 (logrank test)

Table S14. Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 414 | 40 | 0.0 - 187.1 (16.6)
subtype1 | 252 | 17 | 0.0 - 187.1 (18.2)
subtype2 | 11 | 0 | 1.4 - 133.2 (11.4)
subtype3 | 118 | 16 | 0.0 - 113.2 (13.0)
subtype4 | 17 | 5 | 0.5 - 68.3 (13.2)
subtype5 | 16 | 2 | 0.7 - 33.5 (13.2)

Figure S11. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'CN CNMF' versus 'AGE'

P value = 3.14e-09 (ANOVA)

Table S15. Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 417 | 63.4 (11.2)
subtype1 | 254 | 60.9 (11.3)
subtype2 | 11 | 65.3 (13.1)
subtype3 | 119 | 69.0 (8.3)
subtype4 | 17 | 63.7 (12.5)
subtype5 | 16 | 60.9 (11.4)

Figure S12. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'CN CNMF' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 1.39e-32 (Chi-square test)

Table S16. Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1 OR 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 308 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 16 | 74
subtype1 | 229 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4
subtype2 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
subtype3 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 68
subtype4 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1
subtype5 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0

Figure S13. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'CN CNMF' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.107 (Chi-square test)

Table S17. Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 129 | 289
subtype1 | 91 | 164
subtype2 | 2 | 9
subtype3 | 29 | 90
subtype4 | 3 | 14
subtype5 | 4 | 12

Figure S14. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'CN CNMF' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.0103 (Chi-square test)

Table S18. Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 102 | 316
subtype1 | 52 | 203
subtype2 | 1 | 10
subtype3 | 43 | 76
subtype4 | 3 | 14
subtype5 | 3 | 13

Figure S15. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'CN CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF'

Table S19. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3
--- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 119 | 71 | 123

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.00798 (logrank test)

Table S20. Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 309 | 30 | 0.0 - 187.1 (12.8)
subtype1 | 117 | 18 | 0.0 - 187.1 (11.5)
subtype2 | 71 | 4 | 0.0 - 92.0 (17.5)
subtype3 | 121 | 8 | 0.1 - 173.6 (13.0)

Figure S16. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.0123 (ANOVA)

Table S21. Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 312 | 63.5 (11.1)
subtype1 | 118 | 65.8 (10.0)
subtype2 | 71 | 63.0 (12.9)
subtype3 | 123 | 61.6 (10.8)

Figure S17. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 4.28e-17 (Chi-square test)

Table S22. Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 229 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 58
subtype1 | 54 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 50
subtype2 | 58 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 8
subtype3 | 117 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0

Figure S18. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0786 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S23. Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 79 | 234
subtype1 | 32 | 87
subtype2 | 11 | 60
subtype3 | 36 | 87

Figure S19. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.0132 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S24. Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 70 | 243
subtype1 | 37 | 82
subtype2 | 10 | 61
subtype3 | 23 | 100

Figure S20. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes'

Table S25. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 41 | 38 | 41 | 16 | 38 | 26

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.114 (logrank test)

Table S26. Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 200 | 13 | 0.0 - 173.6 (21.7)
subtype1 | 41 | 4 | 0.6 - 106.9 (21.0)
subtype2 | 38 | 2 | 1.3 - 133.2 (24.7)
subtype3 | 41 | 2 | 1.8 - 173.6 (22.6)
subtype4 | 16 | 2 | 1.4 - 82.7 (26.6)
subtype5 | 38 | 1 | 0.0 - 101.1 (12.4)
subtype6 | 26 | 2 | 0.7 - 66.9 (20.8)

Figure S21. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.343 (ANOVA)

Table S27. Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 200 | 62.7 (11.1)
subtype1 | 41 | 62.9 (12.2)
subtype2 | 38 | 63.4 (10.6)
subtype3 | 41 | 61.9 (10.8)
subtype4 | 16 | 68.1 (8.2)
subtype5 | 38 | 60.6 (9.6)
subtype6 | 26 | 62.6 (13.3)

Figure S22. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 3.91e-06 (Chi-square test)

Table S28. Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1 OR 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 164 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 23
subtype1 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6
subtype2 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11
subtype3 | 40 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0
subtype4 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0
subtype5 | 36 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0
subtype6 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6

Figure S23. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.327 (Chi-square test)

Table S29. Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 80 | 120
subtype1 | 20 | 21
subtype2 | 18 | 20
subtype3 | 13 | 28
subtype4 | 4 | 12
subtype5 | 13 | 25
subtype6 | 12 | 14

Figure S24. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.0533 (Chi-square test)

Table S30. Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 60 | 140
subtype1 | 14 | 27
subtype2 | 15 | 23
subtype3 | 11 | 30
subtype4 | 5 | 11
subtype5 | 4 | 34
subtype6 | 11 | 15

Figure S25. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #5: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes'

Table S31. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 7 | 33 | 39 | 39 | 56 | 26

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.294 (logrank test)

Table S32. Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 200 | 13 | 0.0 - 173.6 (21.7)
subtype1 | 7 | 0 | 9.2 - 70.4 (15.1)
subtype2 | 33 | 2 | 0.0 - 89.3 (12.2)
subtype3 | 39 | 2 | 0.7 - 98.2 (16.3)
subtype4 | 39 | 4 | 1.3 - 133.2 (23.3)
subtype5 | 56 | 3 | 1.4 - 173.6 (23.7)
subtype6 | 26 | 2 | 0.7 - 101.1 (22.7)

Figure S26. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.463 (ANOVA)

Table S33. Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 200 | 62.7 (11.1)
subtype1 | 7 | 65.0 (17.0)
subtype2 | 33 | 62.5 (11.5)
subtype3 | 39 | 59.8 (9.3)
subtype4 | 39 | 65.0 (11.3)
subtype5 | 56 | 63.1 (9.8)
subtype6 | 26 | 62.5 (13.2)

Figure S27. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 0.00421 (Chi-square test)

Table S34. Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1 OR 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 164 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 23
subtype1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
subtype2 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3
subtype3 | 35 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2
subtype4 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 13
subtype5 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0
subtype6 | 18 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5

Figure S28. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.584 (Chi-square test)

Table S35. Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 80 | 120
subtype1 | 2 | 5
subtype2 | 10 | 23
subtype3 | 15 | 24
subtype4 | 19 | 20
subtype5 | 25 | 31
subtype6 | 9 | 17

Figure S29. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.157 (Chi-square test)

Table S36. Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 60 | 140
subtype1 | 0 | 7
subtype2 | 7 | 26
subtype3 | 11 | 28
subtype4 | 16 | 23
subtype5 | 20 | 36
subtype6 | 6 | 20

Figure S30. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #6: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes'

Table S37. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3
--- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 96 | 83 | 87

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.00873 (logrank test)

Table S38. Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 266 | 20 | 0.0 - 173.6 (20.2)
subtype1 | 96 | 13 | 0.5 - 133.2 (17.8)
subtype2 | 83 | 2 | 0.6 - 101.1 (21.4)
subtype3 | 87 | 5 | 0.0 - 173.6 (22.6)

Figure S31. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.00104 (ANOVA)

Table S39. Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 266 | 63.1 (10.8)
subtype1 | 96 | 66.2 (10.4)
subtype2 | 83 | 62.4 (10.6)
subtype3 | 87 | 60.4 (10.7)

Figure S32. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 8.73e-18 (Chi-square test)

Table S40. Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1 OR 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 205 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 41
subtype1 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 41
subtype2 | 78 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0
subtype3 | 82 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0

Figure S33. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0148 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S41. Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 99 | 167
subtype1 | 44 | 52
subtype2 | 21 | 62
subtype3 | 34 | 53

Figure S34. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.000242 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S42. Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 83 | 183
subtype1 | 45 | 51
subtype2 | 19 | 64
subtype3 | 19 | 68

Figure S35. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes'

Table S43. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3
--- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 96 | 82 | 88

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.00985 (logrank test)

Table S44. Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 266 | 20 | 0.0 - 173.6 (20.2)
subtype1 | 96 | 12 | 0.6 - 133.2 (17.7)
subtype2 | 82 | 1 | 0.6 - 101.1 (22.7)
subtype3 | 88 | 7 | 0.0 - 173.6 (22.5)

Figure S36. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.00202 (ANOVA)

Table S45. Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 266 | 63.1 (10.8)
subtype1 | 96 | 66.0 (10.4)
subtype2 | 82 | 62.5 (10.4)
subtype3 | 88 | 60.5 (11.0)

Figure S37. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 8.69e-18 (Chi-square test)

Table S46. Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1 OR 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 205 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 41
subtype1 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 41
subtype2 | 77 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0
subtype3 | 83 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0

Figure S38. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0325 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S47. Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 99 | 167
subtype1 | 44 | 52
subtype2 | 22 | 60
subtype3 | 33 | 55

Figure S39. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 1.45e-05 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S48. Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 83 | 183
subtype1 | 47 | 49
subtype2 | 15 | 67
subtype3 | 21 | 67

Figure S40. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes'

Table S49. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3
--- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 147 | 124 | 101

'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.00602 (logrank test)

Table S50. Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 370 | 30 | 0.0 - 187.1 (17.4)
subtype1 | 146 | 18 | 0.0 - 187.1 (15.5)
subtype2 | 123 | 3 | 0.1 - 101.1 (17.3)
subtype3 | 101 | 9 | 0.5 - 173.6 (23.3)

Figure S41. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 0.000193 (ANOVA)

Table S51. Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 372 | 63.2 (11.2)
subtype1 | 147 | 65.9 (10.6)
subtype2 | 124 | 62.5 (11.6)
subtype3 | 101 | 60.1 (10.8)

Figure S42. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 5.4e-20 (Chi-square test)

Table S52. Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1 OR 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 284 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 54
subtype1 | 77 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 53
subtype2 | 117 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0
subtype3 | 90 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1

Figure S43. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0958 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S53. Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 123 | 249
subtype1 | 58 | 89
subtype2 | 34 | 90
subtype3 | 31 | 70

Figure S44. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.00481 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S54. Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 96 | 276
subtype1 | 51 | 96
subtype2 | 22 | 102
subtype3 | 23 | 78

Figure S45. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes'

Table S55. Get Full Table Description of clustering approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes'

Cluster Labels | 1 | 2 | 3
--- | --- | --- | ---
Number of samples | 114 | 169 | 89

'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.0652 (logrank test)

Table S56. Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

| nPatients | nDeath | Duration Range (Median), Month
--- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 370 | 30 | 0.0 - 187.1 (17.4)
subtype1 | 113 | 4 | 0.1 - 101.1 (17.3)
subtype2 | 168 | 18 | 0.0 - 187.1 (17.8)
subtype3 | 89 | 8 | 0.6 - 173.6 (16.8)

Figure S46. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'AGE'

P value = 3.03e-05 (ANOVA)

Table S57. Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

| nPatients | Mean (Std.Dev)
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 372 | 63.2 (11.2)
subtype1 | 114 | 63.8 (10.5)
subtype2 | 169 | 65.2 (10.8)
subtype3 | 89 | 58.6 (11.7)

Figure S47. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'AGE'

'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

P value = 1.14e-13 (Chi-square test)

Table S58. Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

nPatients | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1 OR 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 1) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 2) | ENDOMETRIOID ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA (GRADE 3) | MIXED SEROUS AND ENDOMETRIOID | SEROUS ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMA
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
ALL | 284 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 54
subtype1 | 103 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3
subtype2 | 100 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 51
subtype3 | 81 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0

Figure S48. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'HISTOLOGICAL.TYPE'

'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0303 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S59. Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 123 | 249
subtype1 | 31 | 83
subtype2 | 68 | 101
subtype3 | 24 | 65

Figure S49. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'RADIATIONS.RADIATION.REGIMENINDICATION'

'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

P value = 0.0281 (Fisher's exact test)

Table S60. Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

nPatients | NO | YES
--- | --- | ---
ALL | 96 | 276
subtype1 | 23 | 91
subtype2 | 55 | 114
subtype3 | 18 | 71

Figure S50. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'NEOADJUVANT.THERAPY'

Methods & Data
Input

- Cluster data file = UCEC.mergedcluster.txt

- Clinical data file = UCEC.clin.merged.picked.txt

- Number of patients = 430

- Number of clustering approaches = 10

- Number of selected clinical features = 5

- Exclude small clusters that include fewer than K patients, K = 3

Clustering approaches
CNMF clustering

consensus non-negative matrix factorization clustering approach (Brunet et al. 2004)

Consensus hierarchical clustering

Resampling-based clustering method (Monti et al. 2003)

Survival analysis

For survival clinical features, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves of tumors with and without gene mutations were plotted and the statistical significance P values were estimated by logrank test (Bland and Altman 2004) using the 'survdiff' function in R

ANOVA analysis

For continuous numerical clinical features, one-way analysis of variance (Howell 2002) was applied to compare the clinical values between tumor subtypes using 'anova' function in R

Chi-square test

For multi-class clinical features (nominal or ordinal), Chi-square tests (Greenwood and Nikulin 1996) were used to estimate the P values using the 'chisq.test' function in R

Fisher's exact test

For binary clinical features, two-tailed Fisher's exact tests (Fisher 1922) were used to estimate the P values using the 'fisher.test' function in R

Download Results

This is an experimental feature. The full results of the analysis summarized in this report can be downloaded from the TCGA Data Coordination Center.

- Analysis Results (MD5 checksum)

- Auxiliary Data (MD5 checksum)

- MAGE-TAB File (MD5 checksum)

References
[1] Brunet et al., Metagenes and molecular pattern discovery using matrix factorization, PNAS 101(12):4164-9 (2004)
[2] Monti et al., Consensus Clustering: A Resampling-Based Method for Class Discovery and Visualization of Gene Expression Microarray Data, Machine Learning 52(1):91-118 (2003)
[3] Bland and Altman, Statistics notes: The logrank test, BMJ 328(7447):1073 (2004)
[4] Howell, D, Statistical Methods for Psychology. (5th ed.), Duxbury Press:324-5 (2002)
[5] Greenwood and Nikulin, A guide to chi-squared testing, Wiley, New York. ISBN 047155779X (1996)
[6] Fisher, R.A., On the interpretation of chi-square from contingency tables, and the calculation of P, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 85(1):87-94 (1922)
Copyright © 2012 Broad Institute TCGA GDAC as part of the TCGA Research Network. All rights reserved.
Made with Nozzle