Data from Molecular Subtypes of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer across Racial Groups and Gene Expression Platforms

Le résumé fourni par la source

AbstractBackground: High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) gene expression subtypes are associated with differential survival. We characterized HGSC gene expression in Black individuals and considered whether gene expression differences by self-identified race may contribute to poorer HGSC survival among Black versus White individuals. Methods: We included newly generated RNA sequencing data from Black and White individuals and array-based genotyping data from four existing studies of White and Japanese individuals. We used K-means clustering, a method with no predefined number of clusters or dataset-specific features, to assign subtypes. Cluster- and dataset-specific gene expression patterns were summarized by moderated t-scores. We compared cluster-specific gene expression patterns across datasets by calculating the correlation between the summarized vectors of moderated t-scores. After mapping to The Cancer Genome Atlas–derived HGSC subtypes, we used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate subtype-specific survival by dataset. Results: Cluster-specific gene expression was similar across gene expression platforms and racial groups. Comparing the Black population with the White and Japanese populations, the immunoreactive subtype was more common (39% vs. 23%–28%) and the differentiated subtype was less common (7% vs. 22%–31%). Patterns of subtype-specific survival were similar between the Black and White populations with RNA sequencing data; compared with mesenchymal cases, the risk of death was similar for proliferative and differentiated cases and suggestively lower for immunoreactive cases [Black population HR = 0.79 (0.55, 1.13); White population HR = 0.86 (0.62, 1.19)]. Conclusions: Although the prevalence of HGSC subtypes varied by race, subtype-specific survival was similar. Impact: HGSC subtypes can be consistently assigned across platforms and self-identified racial groups.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.