Evaluating Genomic Alterations in Cancer Prognosis
All study findings in the pooled cohort were repeated within each cohort. The inference results and direction of association in the pooled cohort data is similar with the within-cohort data (figures not shown). The combined failure-time endpoints plot for all cohorts graphically shows no significant difference in both endpoints among the cohorts (Extended Data Fig. 2g). Kaplan-Meier analysis and univariable Cox regression analysis (coxph() function) were done using the R packages survival and survminer to evaluate the association between progression-free and overall survival times and genomic alterations (amplification, deletion, truncating mutation, HLA heterozygosity or infiltration). Significance testing for differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) was performed using the log-rank test (survdiff() function) at a significance level of p < 0.05. Additional multivariable analysis including MSKCC risk group, lines of therapy (≤1 or ≥2), or timing of sample collection (days before beginning trial therapy) as covariates confirmed the significant association of truncating mutations in PBRM1, del(10q23.31), and del(9p21.3) within infiltrated tumors as significantly associated with altered PFS and OS. All comparisons of discrete variables between groups (clinical benefit vs. no clinical benefit, CRPR vs. PD, genomic alteration vs. WT, or infiltrated vs. not infiltrated) were done with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test (wilcox.test() or stat_compare_means(method = “wilcox”) R function, two-sided, from stats or matrixTests package). All comparisons were two-sided with an alpha-level of 0.05. For all box-plots, data distribution is shown through the violin-plot, the center line represents the median; the box limits represents the upper and lower quartiles; and the whiskers represent 1.5 times the interquartile range (outlier points outside of this range are shown as part of the box-plot). Comparisons of the copy number alterations by infiltration state were done with Fisher’s exact tests (fisher.test() R function, two-sided, from stats package). The Benjamini-Hochberg method for controlling false discovery rate (FDR) was applied to control for multiple hypothesis testing among different comparisons: for immune infiltration phenotype comparisons with a threshold of q < 0.05; for ssGSEA and CIBERSORTx scores comparisons with two thresholds of q < 0.05 and q < 0.25. All statistical analyses and figures were generated in R version 3.6.0.
Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol. The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link:
Access Free Full Text.
Braun D.A., Hou Y., Bakouny Z., Ficial M., Angelo M.S., Forman J., Ross-Macdonald P., Berger A.C., Jegede O.A., Elagina L., Steinharter J., Sun M., Wind-Rotolo M., Pignon J.C., Cherniack A.C., Lichtenstein L., Neuberg D., Catalano P., Freeman G.J., Sharpe A.H., McDermott D.F., Van Allen E.M., Signoretti S., Wu C.J., Shukla S.A, & Choueiri T.K. (2020). Interplay of somatic alterations and immune infiltration modulates response to PD-1 blockade in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Nature medicine, 26(6), 909-918.
Publication 2020
Center line Copy number alterations DeletionFree association Genomic Heterozygosity Mutations Pbrm1Phenotype Progression Risk group Sample collection Therapy Tumors Whiskers
Corresponding Organization :
Other organizations :
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States), Broad Institute, Boston VA Research Institute
Genomic alterations (amplification, deletion, truncating mutation, HLA heterozygosity or infiltration)
dependent variables
Progression-free survival (PFS)
Overall survival (OS)
control variables
MSKCC risk group
Lines of therapy (≤1 or ≥2)
Timing of sample collection (days before beginning trial therapy)
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required