Skip to main content

Table 3 Prognostic subclusters common to both methods after meta-analysis of Cox proportional hazards regression model in 6 cohorts of HGSTOC patients

From: High-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer refined with single-cell RNA sequencing: specific cell subtypes influence survival and determine molecular subtype classification

Subcluster

SSZ score

xCell enrichment score

HR [95% CI]

p value

BH adj. p value

HR [95% CI]

p value

BH adj. p value

BC_ IGHG1_PRDM1

0.82 [0.74–0.92]

< 0.001

0.007

0.08 [0.01–0.50]

0.007

0.049

FB_CALB2

1.47 [1.20–1.81]

< 0.001

0.007

57.73 [9.34–357.00]

< 0.001

< 0.001

FB_MYH11

1.25 [1.05–1.50]

0.014

0.099

106.52 [14.3–790.0]

< 0.001

< 0.001

FB_COMP

1.23 [1.10–1.37]

< 0.001

0.007

4.95 [1.29–19.02]

0.020

0.091

TUM_BAMBI

1.47 [1.09–1.99]

0.012

0.099

34.11 [4.89–238.10]

< 0.001

0.004

EC_PROX1

1.29 [1.00–1.65]

0.049

0.229

10.35 [1.42–75.13]

0.020

0.091

  1. Subclusters significantly affecting OS based on two different scoring methods: subcluster-specific z-score (SSZ score; using transcriptomic markers) and the xCell enrichment score (see “Methods”). The meta-analysis hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival, p values and the Benjamini-Hochberg-corrected (BH) p values are included. Full list of all HR and p values for all subclusters in both meta-analyses can be found in Additional file 11: Table S9 (SSZ scores) and Additional file 12: Table S10 (xCell). However, the hazard ratio values are not combined in any way between subclusters or between scoring systems and meta-analyses were conducted per individual subcluster and scoring system. Phenotypes highlighted in the table were chosen based on p values of their meta-analyses which are scale independent