Prostate Adenocarcinoma: Correlation between copy number variations of arm-level result and selected clinical features
(primary solid tumor cohort)
Maintained by TCGA GDAC Team (Broad Institute/MD Anderson Cancer Center/Harvard Medical School)
Overview
Introduction

This pipeline computes the correlation between significant arm-level copy number variations (cnvs) and selected clinical features.

Summary

Testing the association between copy number variation 21 arm-level results and 3 clinical features across 146 patients, no significant finding detected with Q value < 0.25.

  • No arm-level cnvs related to clinical features.

Results
Overview of the results

Table 1.  Get Full Table Overview of the association between significant copy number variation of 21 arm-level results and 3 clinical features. Shown in the table are P values (Q values). Thresholded by Q value < 0.25, no significant finding detected.

Clinical
Features
Time
to
Death
AGE RADIATIONS
RADIATION
REGIMENINDICATION
nCNV (%) nWild-Type logrank test t-test Fisher's exact test
1q gain 4 (3%) 142 1
(1.00)
0.299
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
3p gain 4 (3%) 142 1
(1.00)
0.646
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
3q gain 6 (4%) 140 1
(1.00)
0.329
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
7p gain 15 (10%) 131 1
(1.00)
0.0153
(0.963)
1
(1.00)
7q gain 12 (8%) 134 1
(1.00)
0.0682
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
8p gain 6 (4%) 140 1
(1.00)
0.537
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
8q gain 13 (9%) 133 1
(1.00)
0.603
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
9q gain 3 (2%) 143 1
(1.00)
0.276
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
6q loss 7 (5%) 139 1
(1.00)
0.258
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
8p loss 38 (26%) 108 1
(1.00)
0.0476
(1.00)
0.327
(1.00)
8q loss 4 (3%) 142 1
(1.00)
0.635
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
10p loss 5 (3%) 141 1
(1.00)
0.91
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
10q loss 4 (3%) 142 1
(1.00)
0.396
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
12p loss 7 (5%) 139 1
(1.00)
0.674
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
13q loss 11 (8%) 135 1
(1.00)
0.82
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
16q loss 18 (12%) 128 1
(1.00)
0.146
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
17p loss 17 (12%) 129 1
(1.00)
0.529
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
18p loss 14 (10%) 132 1
(1.00)
0.621
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
18q loss 19 (13%) 127 1
(1.00)
0.3
(1.00)
1
(1.00)
20p loss 4 (3%) 142 1
(1.00)
0.451
(1.00)
0.131
(1.00)
22q loss 5 (3%) 141 1
(1.00)
0.274
(1.00)
0.162
(1.00)
Methods & Data
Input
  • Mutation data file = broad_values_by_arm.mutsig.cluster.txt

  • Clinical data file = PRAD-TP.clin.merged.picked.txt

  • Number of patients = 146

  • Number of significantly arm-level cnvs = 21

  • Number of selected clinical features = 3

  • Exclude genes that fewer than K tumors have mutations, K = 3

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

Student's t-test analysis

For continuous numerical clinical features, two-tailed Student's t test with unequal variance (Lehmann and Romano 2005) was applied to compare the clinical values between tumors with and without gene mutations using 't.test' function in R

Fisher's exact test

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

Q value calculation

For multiple hypothesis correction, Q value is the False Discovery Rate (FDR) analogue of the P value (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995), defined as the minimum FDR at which the test may be called significant. We used the 'Benjamini and Hochberg' method of 'p.adjust' function in R to convert P values into Q values.

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.

References
[1] Bland and Altman, Statistics notes: The logrank test, BMJ 328(7447):1073 (2004)
[2] Lehmann and Romano, Testing Statistical Hypotheses (3E ed.), New York: Springer. ISBN 0387988645 (2005)
[3] 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)
[4] Benjamini and Hochberg, Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 59:289-300 (1995)