Ournal.pone.0066361.tChromosome Instability and Prognosis in MMTable 3. Summary of univariate and multivariate Cox proportional 79831-76-8 hazard analysis with stepwise refinement using various prognostic GEP ��-Sitosterol ��-D-glucoside web signatures for OS in UAMS, APEX, and HOVON datasets.Univariate Data UAMS Signature CINGECS PI CNTI UAMS70 IFM HMCL7 HZDCD EMC92 Overall APEX CINGECS PI CNTI UAMS70 IFM HMCL7 HZDCD EMC92 Overall Hovon CINGECS PI CNTI UAMS70 IFM HMCL7 HZDCD EMC92 Overall 1.53 (1.26?.85) 1.62 (1.34?.97) 1.30 (1.08?.56) 1.66 (1.37?.02) 1.53 (1.26?.85) 1.20 (1.00?.43) 1.29 (1.07?.55) 2.27 (1.85?.80) 1.Multivariate P 3.26610 0.0189 0.00483 3.3361028 0.000244 0.0319 0.000781 7.461026 3.26HR (CI) 1.55 (1.26?.99) 1.24 (1.04?.49) 1.30 (1.08?.56) 1.74 (1.43?.11) 1.42 (1.18?.72) 1.22 (1.02?.45) 1.37 (1.14?.65) 1.54 (1.28?.87)HR (CI) 1.33 (1.07?.66)P 0.1.54 (1.25?.90)5.1.20 (1.01?.44)0.1.51 (1.27?.79) 0.97 (0.82?.14) 1.25 (1.07?.47) 1.42 (1.20?.68) 1.28 (1.09?.51) 0.84 (0.71?.98) 1.30 (1.10?.54) 1.53 (1.30?.82)2.1960 0.686 0.1.38 (1.16?.64)0.6.2961025 0.00209 0.0268 0.00215 6.4061027 1.43 (1.20?.71) 5.8761025 2.7161029 1.26 (1.04?.53) 0.0198 1.0261026 0.00467 2.2661027 1.2761025 0.0507 0.00660 7.99610215 2.14 (1.73?.65) 3.29610212HR = Hazard Ratio; CI = 95 Confidence Interval; P = p-value; Overall = collective p-value of final multivariate analysis with step-wise refinement. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066361.tthe high-risk CINGECS group in UAMS dataset (Table S3). Strikingly, CKS1B amplification was significantly more common in the high risk CIN group in UAMS dataset (65.1 in the 18204824 highest CINGECS risk group compared to 28.1 in the lowest CINGECS risk group). The prognostic utility of CINGECS in the presence of other GEP-based prognostic signatures was assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis. First, to minimize the confounding effect, we compared CINGECS with two other CIN-associated signatures, CIN70 and CINSARC, that share substantial proportion of their member probes with CINGECS (33 and 42 probes out of 70 and 67 total probes, respectively; Figure S3) in three representative public datasets of MM (table 2). CINGECS consistently performed the best among CIN signatures in all datasets and retained for further multivariate analysis with various other prognostic GEP signatures of MM. In UAMS dataset, all signatures considered in this study were statistically significant for OS in univariate analyses (Table 3; individual survival curves in Figure S4) with CINGECS inferior only to UAMS70 (HR = 1.74, CI = 1.43?.11, p = 3.3361028) and EMC92 (HR = 1.54, CI = 1.28?.87, p = 7.461026). Onmultivariate analysis, however, CINGECS (HR = 1.33, CI = 1.07?.66, p = 0.0119) remained as an independent risk factor besides UAMS70 (HR = 1.54, CI = 1.25?.90, p = 5.9161025) and HMCL7 (HR = 1.20, CI = 1.01?.44, p = 0.0428). For OS in APEX dataset, all signatures except PI were statistically significant with CINGECS inferior only to EMC92 (HR = 1.53, CI = 1.30?.82, p = 6.4061027) in univariate analyses (Table 3; individual survival curves in Figure S5). However, only CINGECS (HR = 1.38, CI = 1.16?.64, p = 0.000258) and EMC92 (HR = 1.43, CI = 1.20?.71, p = 5.8761025) were statistically significant on multivariate analysis. For OS in HOVON dataset, all signatures except HMCL7 were statistically significant in univariate analyses with EMC92 (HR = 2.27, CI = 1.85?.80, p = 7.99610215), UAMS70 (HR = 1.66, CI = 1.37?.02, p = 2.2661027), and PI (HR = 1.62, CI = 1.34?.97, p = 1.0261026).Ournal.pone.0066361.tChromosome Instability and Prognosis in MMTable 3. Summary of univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis with stepwise refinement using various prognostic GEP signatures for OS in UAMS, APEX, and HOVON datasets.Univariate Data UAMS Signature CINGECS PI CNTI UAMS70 IFM HMCL7 HZDCD EMC92 Overall APEX CINGECS PI CNTI UAMS70 IFM HMCL7 HZDCD EMC92 Overall Hovon CINGECS PI CNTI UAMS70 IFM HMCL7 HZDCD EMC92 Overall 1.53 (1.26?.85) 1.62 (1.34?.97) 1.30 (1.08?.56) 1.66 (1.37?.02) 1.53 (1.26?.85) 1.20 (1.00?.43) 1.29 (1.07?.55) 2.27 (1.85?.80) 1.Multivariate P 3.26610 0.0189 0.00483 3.3361028 0.000244 0.0319 0.000781 7.461026 3.26HR (CI) 1.55 (1.26?.99) 1.24 (1.04?.49) 1.30 (1.08?.56) 1.74 (1.43?.11) 1.42 (1.18?.72) 1.22 (1.02?.45) 1.37 (1.14?.65) 1.54 (1.28?.87)HR (CI) 1.33 (1.07?.66)P 0.1.54 (1.25?.90)5.1.20 (1.01?.44)0.1.51 (1.27?.79) 0.97 (0.82?.14) 1.25 (1.07?.47) 1.42 (1.20?.68) 1.28 (1.09?.51) 0.84 (0.71?.98) 1.30 (1.10?.54) 1.53 (1.30?.82)2.1960 0.686 0.1.38 (1.16?.64)0.6.2961025 0.00209 0.0268 0.00215 6.4061027 1.43 (1.20?.71) 5.8761025 2.7161029 1.26 (1.04?.53) 0.0198 1.0261026 0.00467 2.2661027 1.2761025 0.0507 0.00660 7.99610215 2.14 (1.73?.65) 3.29610212HR = Hazard Ratio; CI = 95 Confidence Interval; P = p-value; Overall = collective p-value of final multivariate analysis with step-wise refinement. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066361.tthe high-risk CINGECS group in UAMS dataset (Table S3). Strikingly, CKS1B amplification was significantly more common in the high risk CIN group in UAMS dataset (65.1 in the 18204824 highest CINGECS risk group compared to 28.1 in the lowest CINGECS risk group). The prognostic utility of CINGECS in the presence of other GEP-based prognostic signatures was assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis. First, to minimize the confounding effect, we compared CINGECS with two other CIN-associated signatures, CIN70 and CINSARC, that share substantial proportion of their member probes with CINGECS (33 and 42 probes out of 70 and 67 total probes, respectively; Figure S3) in three representative public datasets of MM (table 2). CINGECS consistently performed the best among CIN signatures in all datasets and retained for further multivariate analysis with various other prognostic GEP signatures of MM. In UAMS dataset, all signatures considered in this study were statistically significant for OS in univariate analyses (Table 3; individual survival curves in Figure S4) with CINGECS inferior only to UAMS70 (HR = 1.74, CI = 1.43?.11, p = 3.3361028) and EMC92 (HR = 1.54, CI = 1.28?.87, p = 7.461026). Onmultivariate analysis, however, CINGECS (HR = 1.33, CI = 1.07?.66, p = 0.0119) remained as an independent risk factor besides UAMS70 (HR = 1.54, CI = 1.25?.90, p = 5.9161025) and HMCL7 (HR = 1.20, CI = 1.01?.44, p = 0.0428). For OS in APEX dataset, all signatures except PI were statistically significant with CINGECS inferior only to EMC92 (HR = 1.53, CI = 1.30?.82, p = 6.4061027) in univariate analyses (Table 3; individual survival curves in Figure S5). However, only CINGECS (HR = 1.38, CI = 1.16?.64, p = 0.000258) and EMC92 (HR = 1.43, CI = 1.20?.71, p = 5.8761025) were statistically significant on multivariate analysis. For OS in HOVON dataset, all signatures except HMCL7 were statistically significant in univariate analyses with EMC92 (HR = 2.27, CI = 1.85?.80, p = 7.99610215), UAMS70 (HR = 1.66, CI = 1.37?.02, p = 2.2661027), and PI (HR = 1.62, CI = 1.34?.97, p = 1.0261026).
