Correlation between APOBEC groups and selected clinical features

Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma (Primary solid tumor)

02 April 2015 | analyses__2015_04_02

Maintainer Information

Citation Information

Maintained by Hailei Zhang (Broad Institute)

Cite as Broad Institute TCGA Genome Data Analysis Center (2015): Correlation between APOBEC groups and selected clinical features. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. doi:10.7908/C1NP23G4

Overview

Introduction

This pipeline computes the correlation between APOBRC groups and selected clinical features.

Summary

Testing the association between APOBEC groups identified by 2 different apobec score and 15 clinical features across 177 patients, 4 significant findings detected with Q value < 0.25.

3 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE'. These subtypes correlate to 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE' and 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'.
3 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'APOBEC ENRICH'. These subtypes correlate to 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE' and 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'.

Results

Overview of the results

Table 1. Get Full Table Overview of the association between APOBEC groups by 2 different APOBEC scores and 15 clinical features. Shown in the table are P values (Q values). Thresholded by Q value < 0.25, 4 significant findings detected.


Clinical Features	Statistical Tests	APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE	APOBEC ENRICH
Time to Death	logrank test	0.487 (0.731)	0.329 (0.607)
YEARS TO BIRTH	Kruskal-Wallis (anova)	0.465 (0.731)	0.344 (0.607)
NEOPLASM DISEASESTAGE	Fisher's exact test	0.0914 (0.507)	0.118 (0.507)
PATHOLOGY T STAGE	Fisher's exact test	0.207 (0.607)	0.202 (0.607)
PATHOLOGY N STAGE	Fisher's exact test	0.565 (0.764)	0.593 (0.764)
PATHOLOGY M STAGE	Fisher's exact test	1 (1.00)	1 (1.00)
GENDER	Fisher's exact test	0.611 (0.764)	0.522 (0.746)
KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE SCORE	Kruskal-Wallis (anova)	0.0153 (0.204)	0.0147 (0.204)
HISTOLOGICAL TYPE	Fisher's exact test	1 (1.00)	0.245 (0.607)
RADIATIONS RADIATION REGIMENINDICATION	Fisher's exact test	0.0272 (0.204)	0.0246 (0.204)
NUMBER PACK YEARS SMOKED	Kruskal-Wallis (anova)	0.846 (0.976)	0.43 (0.717)
YEAR OF TOBACCO SMOKING ONSET	Kruskal-Wallis (anova)	0.297 (0.607)	0.111 (0.507)
COMPLETENESS OF RESECTION	Fisher's exact test	0.147 (0.55)	0.308 (0.607)
RACE	Fisher's exact test	0.936 (1.00)	0.838 (0.976)
ETHNICITY	Fisher's exact test	0.228 (0.607)	0.286 (0.607)

APOBEC group #1: 'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE'

Table S1. Description of APOBEC group #1: 'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE'

Cluster Labels	0	HIGH	LOW
Number of samples	67	43	67

'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE' versus 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE'

P value = 0.0153 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.2

Table S2. Clustering Approach #1: 'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE' versus Clinical Feature #8: 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	36	15.3 (31.8)
0	16	33.1 (41.4)
HIGH	9	0.0 (0.0)
LOW	11	1.8 (6.0)

Figure S1. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE' versus Clinical Feature #8: 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE'

'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE' versus 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0272 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.2

Table S3. Clustering Approach #1: 'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE' versus Clinical Feature #10: 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	5	172
0	0	67
HIGH	0	43
LOW	5	62

Figure S2. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'APOBEC MUTLOAD MINESTIMATE' versus Clinical Feature #10: 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'

APOBEC group #2: 'APOBEC ENRICH'

Table S4. Description of APOBEC group #2: 'APOBEC ENRICH'

Cluster Labels	FC.HIGH.SIG	FC.LOW.NONSIG	FC.NEUTRAL
Number of samples	58	66	53

'APOBEC ENRICH' versus 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE'

P value = 0.0147 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.2

Table S5. Clustering Approach #2: 'APOBEC ENRICH' versus Clinical Feature #8: 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	36	15.3 (31.8)
FC.HIGH.SIG	11	0.0 (0.0)
FC.LOW.NONSIG	16	33.1 (41.4)
FC.NEUTRAL	9	2.2 (6.7)

Figure S3. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'APOBEC ENRICH' versus Clinical Feature #8: 'KARNOFSKY_PERFORMANCE_SCORE'

'APOBEC ENRICH' versus 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'

P value = 0.0246 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.2

Table S6. Clustering Approach #2: 'APOBEC ENRICH' versus Clinical Feature #10: 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	5	172
FC.HIGH.SIG	1	57
FC.LOW.NONSIG	0	66
FC.NEUTRAL	4	49

Figure S4. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'APOBEC ENRICH' versus Clinical Feature #10: 'RADIATIONS_RADIATION_REGIMENINDICATION'

Methods & Data

Input

APOBEC groups file = /xchip/cga/gdac-prod/tcga-gdac/jobResults/APOBEC_Pipelines/LUSC-TP/15165081/APOBEC_clinical_corr_input_15169729/APOBEC_for_clinical.correlaion.input.categorical.txt
Clinical data file = /xchip/cga/gdac-prod/tcga-gdac/jobResults/Append_Data/LUSC-TP/15084586/LUSC-TP.merged_data.txt
Number of patients = 177
Number of selected clinical features = 15

APOBEC classification

APOBEC classification based on APOBEC_MutLoad_MinEstimate : a. APOBEC non group -- samples with zero value, b. APOBEC hig group -- samples above median value in non zero samples, c. APOBEC hig group -- samples below median value in non zero samples.

APOBEC classification based on APOBEC_enrich : a. No Enrichmment group -- all samples with BH_Fisher_p-value_tCw >=0.05, b. Small enrichment group -- samples with BH_Fisher_p-value_tCw = < 0.05 and APOBEC_enrich=<2, c. High enrichment gruop -- samples with BH_Fisher_p-value_tCw =< 0.05 and APOBEC_enrich>2.

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 clinical features, 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