Correlation between gene mutation status and selected clinical features

Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma (Primary solid tumor)

15 July 2014 | analyses__2014_07_15

Maintainer Information

Citation Information

Maintained by TCGA GDAC Team (Broad Institute/MD Anderson Cancer Center/Harvard Medical School)

Cite as Broad Institute TCGA Genome Data Analysis Center (2014): Correlation between gene mutation status and selected clinical features. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. doi:10.7908/C1HQ3XP7

Overview

Introduction

This pipeline computes the correlation between significantly recurrent gene mutations and selected clinical features.

Summary

Testing the association between mutation status of 17 genes and 14 clinical features across 178 patients, no significant finding detected with Q value < 0.25.

No gene mutations related to clinical features.

Results

Overview of the results

Table 1. Get Full Table Overview of the association between mutation status of 17 genes and 14 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	NEOPLASM DISEASESTAGE	PATHOLOGY T STAGE	PATHOLOGY N STAGE	PATHOLOGY M STAGE	GENDER	KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE SCORE	HISTOLOGICAL TYPE	RADIATIONS RADIATION REGIMENINDICATION	NUMBERPACKYEARSSMOKED	COMPLETENESS OF RESECTION	RACE	ETHNICITY
	nMutated (%)	nWild-Type	logrank test	Wilcoxon-test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test	Wilcoxon-test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test	Wilcoxon-test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test
TP53	141 (79%)	37	0.114 (1.00)	0.831 (1.00)	0.887 (1.00)	0.237 (1.00)	0.564 (1.00)	0.127 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.0262 (1.00)	0.672 (1.00)	0.585 (1.00)	0.238 (1.00)	0.379 (1.00)	0.584 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
NFE2L2	27 (15%)	151	0.797 (1.00)	0.793 (1.00)	0.692 (1.00)	0.533 (1.00)	0.831 (1.00)	0.266 (1.00)	0.161 (1.00)	0.9 (1.00)	0.635 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.043 (1.00)	0.498 (1.00)	0.689 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
CDKN2A	26 (15%)	152	0.0247 (1.00)	0.595 (1.00)	0.89 (1.00)	0.434 (1.00)	0.494 (1.00)	0.747 (1.00)	0.812 (1.00)	0.903 (1.00)	0.618 (1.00)	0.55 (1.00)	0.798 (1.00)	0.878 (1.00)	0.181 (1.00)	0.401 (1.00)
KEAP1	22 (12%)	156	0.209 (1.00)	0.817 (1.00)	0.957 (1.00)	0.502 (1.00)	0.883 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.8 (1.00)	0.177 (1.00)	0.229 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.246 (1.00)	0.838 (1.00)	0.463 (1.00)	0.336 (1.00)
PTEN	14 (8%)	164	0.38 (1.00)	0.752 (1.00)	0.244 (1.00)	0.613 (1.00)	0.269 (1.00)	0.0369 (1.00)	1 (1.00)		1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.815 (1.00)	0.296 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.242 (1.00)
PIK3CA	27 (15%)	151	0.0495 (1.00)	0.57 (1.00)	0.0164 (1.00)	0.104 (1.00)	0.716 (1.00)	0.393 (1.00)	0.161 (1.00)	0.654 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.499 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.0275 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
MLL2	35 (20%)	143	0.152 (1.00)	0.998 (1.00)	0.924 (1.00)	0.682 (1.00)	0.755 (1.00)	0.791 (1.00)	0.673 (1.00)	0.698 (1.00)	0.667 (1.00)	0.585 (1.00)	0.769 (1.00)	0.692 (1.00)	0.0802 (1.00)	0.442 (1.00)
RB1	12 (7%)	166	0.309 (1.00)	0.553 (1.00)	0.961 (1.00)	0.824 (1.00)	0.325 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.306 (1.00)		0.0554 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.0746 (1.00)	0.264 (1.00)	0.623 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
IBTK	5 (3%)	173	0.971 (1.00)	0.404 (1.00)	0.289 (1.00)	0.0348 (1.00)	0.795 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)		1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.752 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
CYP11B1	15 (8%)	163	0.134 (1.00)	0.407 (1.00)	0.486 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.0338 (1.00)	0.481 (1.00)	0.36 (1.00)	0.283 (1.00)	0.416 (1.00)	0.0573 (1.00)	0.838 (1.00)	0.476 (1.00)	0.0432 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
NOTCH1	14 (8%)	164	0.279 (1.00)	0.967 (1.00)	0.248 (1.00)	0.0417 (1.00)	0.44 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.527 (1.00)	0.22 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.955 (1.00)	0.769 (1.00)	0.627 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
SLC28A1	9 (5%)	169	0.389 (1.00)	0.0962 (1.00)	0.932 (1.00)	0.126 (1.00)	0.732 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)		0.27 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.11 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.576 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
ASB5	9 (5%)	169	0.209 (1.00)	0.131 (1.00)	0.881 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.529 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)		0.0312 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.195 (1.00)	0.614 (1.00)	0.382 (1.00)	0.0857 (1.00)
CPS1	25 (14%)	153	0.378 (1.00)	0.543 (1.00)	0.236 (1.00)	0.425 (1.00)	0.244 (1.00)	0.741 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.283 (1.00)	0.0374 (1.00)	0.535 (1.00)	0.896 (1.00)	0.759 (1.00)	0.519 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
EP300	8 (4%)	170	0.775 (1.00)	0.0401 (1.00)	0.658 (1.00)	0.153 (1.00)	0.478 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.683 (1.00)		1 (1.00)	0.208 (1.00)	0.147 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
ARID1A	12 (7%)	166	0.453 (1.00)	0.89 (1.00)	0.0232 (1.00)	0.101 (1.00)	0.579 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.187 (1.00)		0.0529 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.495 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.134 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
FBXW7	10 (6%)	168	0.063 (1.00)	0.772 (1.00)	0.278 (1.00)	0.94 (1.00)	0.236 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.295 (1.00)	0.366 (1.00)	0.298 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	0.436 (1.00)	0.654 (1.00)	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)

Methods & Data

Input

Mutation data file = transformed.cor.cli.txt
Clinical data file = LUSC-TP.merged_data.txt
Number of patients = 178
Number of significantly mutated genes = 17
Number of selected clinical features = 14
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

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

In addition to the links below, the full results of the analysis summarized in this report can also be downloaded programmatically using firehose_get, or interactively from either the Broad GDAC website or TCGA Data Coordination Center Portal.

References

[1] Bland and Altman, Statistics notes: The logrank test, BMJ 328(7447):1073 (2004)

[2] 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)

[3] 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)

Made with Nozzle