Correlation between gene mutation status and selected clinical features
Uterine Carcinosarcoma (Primary solid tumor)
21 August 2015  |  analyses__2015_08_21
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 (2015): Correlation between gene mutation status and selected clinical features. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. doi:10.7908/C12R3QZN
Overview
Introduction

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

Summary

Testing the association between mutation status of 11 genes and 5 clinical features across 57 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 11 genes and 5 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
YEARS
TO
BIRTH
RADIATION
THERAPY
HISTOLOGICAL
TYPE
RACE
nMutated (%) nWild-Type logrank test Wilcoxon-test Fisher's exact test Fisher's exact test Fisher's exact test
TP53 51 (89%) 6 0.289
(0.803)
0.0288
(0.725)
0.406
(0.803)
0.474
(0.814)
0.222
(0.762)
FBXW7 22 (39%) 35 0.556
(0.814)
0.407
(0.803)
0.589
(0.814)
0.161
(0.752)
1
(1.00)
PPP2R1A 16 (28%) 41 0.632
(0.814)
0.631
(0.814)
0.553
(0.814)
0.267
(0.803)
0.535
(0.814)
KRAS 7 (12%) 50 0.343
(0.803)
0.576
(0.814)
0.696
(0.814)
0.084
(0.752)
0.562
(0.814)
PTEN 11 (19%) 46 0.403
(0.803)
0.504
(0.814)
0.739
(0.847)
0.689
(0.814)
0.677
(0.814)
RB1 6 (11%) 51 0.164
(0.752)
0.355
(0.803)
0.0901
(0.752)
0.0152
(0.725)
0.329
(0.803)
ZBTB7B 6 (11%) 51 0.127
(0.752)
0.649
(0.814)
0.406
(0.803)
1
(1.00)
0.217
(0.762)
PIK3R1 6 (11%) 51 0.633
(0.814)
0.207
(0.762)
0.659
(0.814)
0.862
(0.93)
0.219
(0.762)
ARHGAP35 6 (11%) 51 0.548
(0.814)
0.0983
(0.752)
0.672
(0.814)
0.409
(0.803)
0.0396
(0.725)
PIK3CA 20 (35%) 37 0.161
(0.752)
0.136
(0.752)
0.786
(0.865)
0.105
(0.752)
0.756
(0.849)
MAMLD1 4 (7%) 53 0.978
(1.00)
0.364
(0.803)
1
(1.00)
0.43
(0.814)
0.305
(0.803)
Methods & Data
Input
  • Mutation data file = sample_sig_gene_table.txt from Mutsig_2CV pipeline

  • Processed Mutation data file = /xchip/cga/gdac-prod/tcga-gdac/jobResults/GDAC_Correlate_Genomic_Events_Preprocess/UCS-TP/20063030/transformed.cor.cli.txt

  • Clinical data file = /xchip/cga/gdac-prod/tcga-gdac/jobResults/Append_Data/UCS-TP/19775681/UCS-TP.merged_data.txt

  • Number of patients = 57

  • Number of significantly mutated genes = 11

  • Number of selected clinical features = 5

  • 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)