Correlation between aggregated molecular cancer subtypes and selected clinical features

Uterine Carcinosarcoma (Primary solid tumor)

28 January 2016 | analyses__2016_01_28

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 (2016): Correlation between aggregated molecular cancer subtypes and selected clinical features. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. doi:10.7908/C1C24VX4

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 57 patients, 2 significant findings detected with P value < 0.05 and Q value < 0.25.

3 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes'. These subtypes do not correlate to any clinical features.
4 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'METHLYATION CNMF'. These subtypes do not correlate to any clinical features.
CNMF clustering analysis on RPPA data identified 5 subtypes that correlate to 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'.
Consensus hierarchical clustering analysis on RPPA data identified 7 subtypes that do not correlate to any clinical features.
CNMF clustering analysis on sequencing-based mRNA expression data identified 4 subtypes that do not correlate to any clinical features.
Consensus hierarchical clustering analysis on sequencing-based mRNA expression data identified 7 subtypes that correlate to 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'.
3 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'MIRSEQ CNMF'. These subtypes do not correlate to any clinical features.
4 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL'. These subtypes do not correlate to any clinical features.
4 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes'. These subtypes do not correlate to any clinical features.
4 subtypes identified in current cancer cohort by 'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes'. These subtypes do not correlate to any clinical features.

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 (Q values). Thresholded by P value < 0.05 and Q value < 0.25, 2 significant findings detected.


Clinical Features	Time to Death	YEARS TO BIRTH	RADIATION THERAPY	HISTOLOGICAL TYPE	RACE
Statistical Tests	logrank test	Kruskal-Wallis (anova)	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test	Fisher's exact test
Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes	0.513 (0.981)	0.691 (0.981)	0.691 (0.981)	0.858 (0.981)	0.734 (0.981)
METHLYATION CNMF	0.193 (0.796)	0.23 (0.796)	0.914 (0.981)	0.428 (0.981)	0.516 (0.981)
RPPA CNMF subtypes	0.659 (0.981)	0.00889 (0.222)	0.99 (0.99)	0.352 (0.981)	0.427 (0.981)
RPPA cHierClus subtypes	0.543 (0.981)	0.0513 (0.641)	0.983 (0.99)	0.403 (0.981)	0.163 (0.796)
RNAseq CNMF subtypes	0.793 (0.981)	0.345 (0.981)	0.982 (0.99)	0.217 (0.796)	0.449 (0.981)
RNAseq cHierClus subtypes	0.0961 (0.796)	0.234 (0.796)	0.865 (0.981)	0.00021 (0.0105)	0.846 (0.981)
MIRSEQ CNMF	0.534 (0.981)	0.0448 (0.641)	0.635 (0.981)	0.0854 (0.796)	0.475 (0.981)
MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL	0.922 (0.981)	0.209 (0.796)	0.888 (0.981)	0.839 (0.981)	0.81 (0.981)
MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes	0.638 (0.981)	0.177 (0.796)	0.616 (0.981)	0.148 (0.796)	0.813 (0.981)
MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes	0.83 (0.981)	0.239 (0.796)	0.836 (0.981)	0.791 (0.981)	0.8 (0.981)

Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes'

Table S1. Description of clustering approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3
Number of samples	21	22	13

'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.513 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

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

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	55	34	0.3 - 140.3 (20.1)
subtype1	21	13	6.7 - 140.3 (26.7)
subtype2	22	14	2.7 - 80.8 (18.7)
subtype3	12	7	0.3 - 88.1 (19.1)

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

'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.691 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.98

Table S3. Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	56	69.8 (9.3)
subtype1	21	69.0 (7.9)
subtype2	22	71.3 (10.4)
subtype3	13	68.7 (10.0)

Figure S2. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.691 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S4. Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	24
subtype1	9	10
subtype2	13	8
subtype3	7	6

Figure S3. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.858 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S5. Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	19	13
subtype1	9	6	6
subtype2	10	7	5
subtype3	5	6	2

Figure S4. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.734 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S6. Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	43
subtype1	1	5	14
subtype2	1	3	18
subtype3	1	1	11

Figure S5. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #1: 'Copy Number Ratio CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF'

Table S7. Description of clustering approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4
Number of samples	20	13	13	11

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.193 (logrank test), Q value = 0.8

Table S8. Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	56	35	0.3 - 140.3 (21.0)
subtype1	20	15	0.3 - 102.4 (20.7)
subtype2	13	10	3.8 - 59.4 (19.9)
subtype3	12	4	2.7 - 140.3 (23.8)
subtype4	11	6	9.8 - 88.1 (23.5)

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

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.23 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.8

Table S9. Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	57	69.7 (9.3)
subtype1	20	66.8 (7.7)
subtype2	13	71.7 (10.9)
subtype3	13	69.0 (8.4)
subtype4	11	73.6 (10.0)

Figure S7. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.914 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S10. Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	25
subtype1	9	9
subtype2	7	6
subtype3	6	6
subtype4	7	4

Figure S8. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.428 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S11. Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	20	13
subtype1	6	10	4
subtype2	4	5	4
subtype3	8	2	3
subtype4	6	3	2

Figure S9. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'METHLYATION CNMF' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.516 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S12. Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	44
subtype1	0	4	16
subtype2	1	3	9
subtype3	1	2	10
subtype4	1	0	9

Figure S10. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #2: 'METHLYATION CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes'

Table S13. Description of clustering approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4	5
Number of samples	12	9	12	6	9

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.659 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

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

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	47	31	0.3 - 140.3 (21.9)
subtype1	12	8	0.3 - 102.4 (27.1)
subtype2	9	7	4.7 - 67.1 (12.4)
subtype3	12	6	3.7 - 55.0 (23.0)
subtype4	5	3	2.7 - 81.7 (6.7)
subtype5	9	7	10.4 - 140.3 (25.4)

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

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.00889 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.22

Table S15. Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	48	70.6 (9.0)
subtype1	12	65.4 (8.1)
subtype2	9	69.4 (6.8)
subtype3	12	76.6 (9.3)
subtype4	6	66.7 (9.7)
subtype5	9	73.3 (6.7)

Figure S12. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.99 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.99

Table S16. Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	25	20
subtype1	6	5
subtype2	4	4
subtype3	6	5
subtype4	4	2
subtype5	5	4

Figure S13. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.352 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S17. Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	18	19	11
subtype1	5	6	1
subtype2	1	4	4
subtype3	6	2	4
subtype4	2	3	1
subtype5	4	4	1

Figure S14. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.427 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S18. Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	36
subtype1	0	1	11
subtype2	0	1	8
subtype3	2	3	7
subtype4	1	1	4
subtype5	0	3	6

Figure S15. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #3: 'RPPA CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes'

Table S19. Description of clustering approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Number of samples	9	8	7	7	7	5	5

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.543 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

Table S20. Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	47	31	0.3 - 140.3 (21.9)
subtype1	9	6	0.3 - 102.4 (27.6)
subtype2	7	5	2.7 - 81.7 (6.7)
subtype3	7	4	12.2 - 80.8 (18.1)
subtype4	7	5	4.9 - 67.1 (20.1)
subtype5	7	4	19.6 - 29.9 (23.5)
subtype6	5	3	3.7 - 27.2 (9.6)
subtype7	5	4	10.4 - 140.3 (25.4)

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

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.0513 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.64

Table S21. Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	48	70.6 (9.0)
subtype1	9	68.1 (8.7)
subtype2	8	65.8 (6.8)
subtype3	7	66.1 (8.1)
subtype4	7	73.3 (9.8)
subtype5	7	73.3 (9.6)
subtype6	5	81.2 (7.4)
subtype7	5	71.0 (4.9)

Figure S17. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.983 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.99

Table S22. Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	25	20
subtype1	4	4
subtype2	4	3
subtype3	4	3
subtype4	5	2
subtype5	4	3
subtype6	2	2
subtype7	2	3

Figure S18. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.403 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S23. Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	18	19	11
subtype1	4	4	1
subtype2	2	4	2
subtype3	3	4	0
subtype4	1	3	3
subtype5	2	2	3
subtype6	3	0	2
subtype7	3	2	0

Figure S19. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.163 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.8

Table S24. Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	36
subtype1	0	2	7
subtype2	1	2	5
subtype3	0	0	7
subtype4	0	0	7
subtype5	1	3	3
subtype6	1	0	4
subtype7	0	2	3

Figure S20. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #4: 'RPPA cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

Clustering Approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes'

Table S25. Description of clustering approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4
Number of samples	16	19	12	10

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.793 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

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

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	56	35	0.3 - 140.3 (21.0)
subtype1	16	12	0.3 - 102.4 (22.7)
subtype2	18	10	3.7 - 59.4 (23.6)
subtype3	12	7	3.8 - 55.0 (16.5)
subtype4	10	6	2.7 - 140.3 (36.3)

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

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.345 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.98

Table S27. Clustering Approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	57	69.7 (9.3)
subtype1	16	69.5 (8.6)
subtype2	19	72.1 (10.1)
subtype3	12	69.2 (9.7)
subtype4	10	66.2 (7.9)

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

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.982 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.99

Table S28. Clustering Approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	25
subtype1	7	7
subtype2	10	8
subtype3	7	5
subtype4	5	5

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

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.217 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.8

Table S29. Clustering Approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	20	13
subtype1	5	9	2
subtype2	11	3	5
subtype3	5	5	2
subtype4	3	3	4

Figure S24. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.449 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S30. Clustering Approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	44
subtype1	0	3	13
subtype2	2	1	16
subtype3	1	2	8
subtype4	0	3	7

Figure S25. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #5: 'RNAseq CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

Clustering Approach #6: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes'

Table S31. Description of clustering approach #6: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Number of samples	11	4	8	6	8	6	14

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.0961 (logrank test), Q value = 0.8

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

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	56	35	0.3 - 140.3 (21.0)
subtype1	11	7	0.3 - 102.4 (27.6)
subtype2	4	4	4.7 - 22.5 (9.0)
subtype3	8	4	11.9 - 59.4 (22.6)
subtype4	6	5	3.8 - 88.1 (14.8)
subtype5	8	4	2.7 - 81.7 (30.0)
subtype6	6	3	9.8 - 55.0 (26.7)
subtype7	13	8	3.7 - 140.3 (19.6)

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

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.234 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.8

Table S33. Clustering Approach #6: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	57	69.7 (9.3)
subtype1	11	67.4 (8.0)
subtype2	4	71.2 (4.3)
subtype3	8	74.6 (8.1)
subtype4	6	66.8 (8.4)
subtype5	8	64.6 (6.8)
subtype6	6	73.0 (11.9)
subtype7	14	71.1 (11.2)

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

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.865 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S34. Clustering Approach #6: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	25
subtype1	5	5
subtype2	1	2
subtype3	4	4
subtype4	5	1
subtype5	4	4
subtype6	3	3
subtype7	7	6

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

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.00021 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.01

Table S35. Clustering Approach #6: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	20	13
subtype1	5	5	1
subtype2	0	3	1
subtype3	1	2	5
subtype4	1	5	0
subtype5	1	3	4
subtype6	4	1	1
subtype7	12	1	1

Figure S29. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #6: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.846 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S36. Clustering Approach #6: 'RNAseq cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	44
subtype1	0	3	8
subtype2	0	1	3
subtype3	1	2	5
subtype4	0	0	5
subtype5	0	1	7
subtype6	1	0	5
subtype7	1	2	11

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

Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF'

Table S37. Description of clustering approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3
Number of samples	15	24	17

'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.534 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

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

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	55	34	0.3 - 140.3 (20.1)
subtype1	15	10	2.7 - 102.4 (17.2)
subtype2	24	15	0.3 - 140.3 (26.7)
subtype3	16	9	3.7 - 81.7 (23.6)

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

'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.0448 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.64

Table S39. Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	56	69.8 (9.3)
subtype1	15	67.9 (9.2)
subtype2	24	68.0 (9.1)
subtype3	17	74.1 (8.8)

Figure S32. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.635 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S40. Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	24
subtype1	8	5
subtype2	14	10
subtype3	7	9

Figure S33. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.0854 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.8

Table S41. Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	19	13
subtype1	4	9	2
subtype2	10	8	6
subtype3	10	2	5

Figure S34. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.475 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S42. Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	43
subtype1	0	3	12
subtype2	1	5	17
subtype3	2	1	14

Figure S35. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #7: 'MIRSEQ CNMF' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL'

Table S43. Description of clustering approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL'

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4
Number of samples	24	8	18	6

'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.922 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

Table S44. Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #1: 'Time to Death'

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	55	34	0.3 - 140.3 (20.1)
subtype1	23	14	2.7 - 102.4 (18.8)
subtype2	8	6	0.3 - 80.8 (27.1)
subtype3	18	11	3.8 - 140.3 (25.0)
subtype4	6	3	15.8 - 27.2 (22.4)

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

'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.209 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.8

Table S45. Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	56	69.8 (9.3)
subtype1	24	70.9 (9.8)
subtype2	8	67.4 (8.7)
subtype3	18	67.7 (9.1)
subtype4	6	74.8 (8.0)

Figure S37. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #2: 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.888 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S46. Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	24
subtype1	11	11
subtype2	4	4
subtype3	11	7
subtype4	3	2

Figure S38. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #3: 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.839 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S47. Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	19	13
subtype1	12	8	4
subtype2	4	3	1
subtype3	6	6	6
subtype4	2	2	2

Figure S39. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.81 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S48. Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	43
subtype1	1	3	20
subtype2	0	2	6
subtype3	1	3	13
subtype4	1	1	4

Figure S40. Get High-res Image Clustering Approach #8: 'MIRSEQ CHIERARCHICAL' versus Clinical Feature #5: 'RACE'

Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes'

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

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4
Number of samples	10	14	14	18

'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.638 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

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

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	55	34	0.3 - 140.3 (20.1)
subtype1	10	8	0.3 - 102.4 (23.2)
subtype2	14	7	2.7 - 81.7 (21.3)
subtype3	14	8	4.9 - 140.3 (25.1)
subtype4	17	11	3.7 - 31.2 (19.6)

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

'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.177 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.8

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

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	56	69.8 (9.3)
subtype1	10	67.5 (8.5)
subtype2	14	68.9 (8.2)
subtype3	14	68.2 (10.0)
subtype4	18	73.1 (9.9)

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

'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.616 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

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

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	24
subtype1	5	4
subtype2	5	8
subtype3	9	5
subtype4	10	7

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

'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.148 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.8

Table S53. Clustering Approach #9: 'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	19	13
subtype1	4	6	0
subtype2	4	5	5
subtype3	5	4	5
subtype4	11	4	3

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

'MIRseq Mature CNMF subtypes' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.813 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

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

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	43
subtype1	0	1	9
subtype2	0	3	11
subtype3	1	3	9
subtype4	2	2	14

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

Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes'

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

Cluster Labels	1	2	3	4
Number of samples	25	7	17	7

'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes' versus 'Time to Death'

P value = 0.83 (logrank test), Q value = 0.98

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

	nPatients	nDeath	Duration Range (Median), Month
ALL	55	34	0.3 - 140.3 (20.1)
subtype1	24	15	2.7 - 102.4 (18.4)
subtype2	7	5	0.3 - 80.8 (27.6)
subtype3	17	10	4.9 - 140.3 (23.5)
subtype4	7	4	15.8 - 27.2 (25.2)

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

'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes' versus 'YEARS_TO_BIRTH'

P value = 0.239 (Kruskal-Wallis (anova)), Q value = 0.8

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

	nPatients	Mean (Std.Dev)
ALL	56	69.8 (9.3)
subtype1	25	70.6 (9.8)
subtype2	7	67.4 (9.4)
subtype3	17	67.8 (9.3)
subtype4	7	74.3 (7.4)

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

'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RADIATION_THERAPY'

P value = 0.836 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

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

nPatients	NO	YES
ALL	29	24
subtype1	12	11
subtype2	3	4
subtype3	10	7
subtype4	4	2

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

'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes' versus 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

P value = 0.791 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

Table S59. Clustering Approach #10: 'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes' versus Clinical Feature #4: 'HISTOLOGICAL_TYPE'

nPatients	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MALIGNANT MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR (MMMT): NOS	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/ MMMT: HETEROLOGOUS TYPE	UTERINE CARCINOSARCOMA/MMMT: HOMOLOGOUS TYPE
ALL	24	19	13
subtype1	12	9	4
subtype2	4	2	1
subtype3	6	5	6
subtype4	2	3	2

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

'MIRseq Mature cHierClus subtypes' versus 'RACE'

P value = 0.8 (Fisher's exact test), Q value = 0.98

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

nPatients	ASIAN	BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN	WHITE
ALL	3	9	43
subtype1	1	3	21
subtype2	0	1	6
subtype3	1	4	11
subtype4	1	1	5

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

Methods & Data

Input

Cluster data file = /xchip/cga/gdac-prod/tcga-gdac/jobResults/GDAC_mergedClustering/UCS-TP/22541488/UCS-TP.mergedcluster.txt
Clinical data file = /xchip/cga/gdac-prod/tcga-gdac/jobResults/Append_Data/UCS-TP/22507158/UCS-TP.merged_data.txt
Number of patients = 57
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

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] 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] 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)

[5] 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