Skip to main content

Table 4 Hazard-ratio and survival analysis of high and low risk in TCGA tumor databases

From: Integrative analysis of the cancer genome atlas and cancer cell lines encyclopedia large-scale genomic databases: MUC4/MUC16/MUC20 signature is associated with poor survival in human carcinomas

Database

N; low vs risk group

Hazard ratio [95% CI]

p value

Bladder–BLCA–TCGA–Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma–July 2016

N = 388; 251 vs 137

1.48 [1.09; 2]

p = 0.01191

Breast–BRCA–TCGA Breast invasive carcinoma–July 2016

N = 962; 831 vs 131

1.06 [0.67; 1.67]

p = 0.8038

Cervical–CESC–TCGA Cervical squamous cell carcinoma and endocervical adenocarcinoma July 2016

N = 191; 147 vs 44

1.55 [0.76; 3.17]

p = 0.2275

Colon–COADREAD–TCGA Colon and Rectum adenocarcinoma June 2016

N = 466; 417 vs 49

2.1 [1.19; 3.71]

p = 0.01061

Esophagus–ESCA–TCGA Esophageal carcinoma June 2016

N = 184; 137 vs 47

0.68 [0.4; 1.15]

p = 0.1468

Head–Neck–HNSC–TCGA Head and Neck squamous cell carcinoma June 2016

N = 502; 107 vs 395

1.26 [0.88; 1.78]

p = 0.204

Hematologic–Acute Myeloid Leukemia TCGA

N = 168; 146 vs 22

1.59 [0.97; 2.62]

p = 0.06818

Kidney–KIPAN–TCGA Kidney PAN cancer TCGA June 2016

N = 792; 555 vs 237

0.94 [0.7; 1.26]

p = 0.6711

Kidney–KIRC–TCGA–Kidney renal clear cell carcinoma

N = 415; 256 vs 159

0.98 [0.7; 1.37]

p = 0.9115

Kidney–KIRP–TCGA Kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma June 2016

N = 278; 248 vs 30

1.24 [0.52; 2.94]

p = 0.6322

Liver–TCGA–Liver–Cancer

N = 304; 137 vs 167

1.4 [0.97; 2.03]

p = 0.07012

Lung ADK–LUAD–TCGA–Lung adenocarcinoma June 2016

N = 475; 410 vs 65

1.7 [1.14; 2.52]

p = 0.008963

Lung Squamous–LUSC–TCGA–Lung squamous cell carcinoma June 2016

N = 175; 59 vs 116

1.69 [1.03; 2.78]

p = 0.03798

Ovarian–Ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma TCGA

N = 578; 390 vs 188

1.33 [1.05; 1.69]

p = 0.01908

Pancreatic–PAAD–TCGA–Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

N = 176; 27 vs 149

3.94 [1.81; 8.61]

p = 0.0005756

Prostate–PRAD–TCGA–Prostate adenocarcinoma June 2016

N = 497; 328 vs 169

1.99 [0.57; 6.88]

p = 0.2793

Skin–SKCM–TCGA Skin Cutaneous Melanoma July 2016

N = 334; 312 vs 23

1.87 [1.08; 3.23]

p = 0.0262

Stomach–STAD–TCGA–Stomach adenocarcinoma June 2016

N = 352; 306 vs 46

1.58 [1; 2.51]

p = 0.04958

Testis–TGCT–TCGA–Testicular Germ Cell Tumors

N = 133; 93 vs 40

5.56 [0.57; 54.52]

p = 0.1407

Thymus–THYM–TCGA–Thymoma June 2016

N = 118; 90 vs 28

1.92 [0.48; 7.77]

p = 0.3588

Thyroid–THCA–TCGA–Thyroid carcinoma–June 2016

N = 247; 45 vs 202

1.98 [0.69; 5.64]

p = 0.2019

  1. Hazard ratio and p-value were determined using SurvExpress tool (http://bioinformatica.mty.itesm.mx/SurvExpress). Risk groups were determined using the optimization algorithm (maximize) from the ordered prognostic index (higher values of MUC4 expression for higher risk). Statistical significant p-values are italicized