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