Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 30;9:1725. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04129-4

Table 1.

Clinical data summary for SMC and TCGA

SMC TCGA Statistical significance
Subjects (n) 187 1,116
Patient age (yr) 39.3 ± 8.5 58.3 ± 13.2 p < 2.2e-16
Tumor purity (%) 71 ± 17.8 77.7 ± 10.7 p = 0.0005
Menopausal status (n(%))
  Pre-menopausal 165 (88.2%) 232 (20.8%) p = 1.12e-76
  Post-menopausal 19 (10.2%) 715 (64.1%) p = 2.4e-68
  Peri-menopausal 41 (3.7%)
  N/A 128 (11.5%)
Clinical subtype (n(%))
  ER+ 103 (55.1%) 480 (43.0%) p = 0.04
  ER+/HER2+ 27 (14.4%) 116 (10.4%)
  HER2+ 15 (8%) 32 (2.9%) p = 0.07
  TNBC 37 (19.8%) 121 (10.8%)
  N/A 5 (2.7%) 367 (32.9%)
TNM stage (n(%))
  I 27 (14.4%) 177 (15.9%)
  II 101 (54%) 605 (54.2%)
  III 58 (31%) 237 (21.2%)
  V 1 (0.5%) 18 (1.6%)
  N/A 79 (7.1%)
Histology subtype (n(%))
  Lobular carcinoma 7 (3.7%) 193 (17.3%) p = 2.9e-08
  Ductal Carcinoma 172 (92.0%) 830 (74.4%) p = 2.9e-08
  Others 8 (4.3%) 37 (3.3%)
  N/A 56 (5.0%)
Race (n(%))
  Asian 187 (100%) 57 (5.1%) p = 2.53e-193
  Black 158 (14.2%)
  White 745 (66.8%)
  N/A 156 (14%)

For SMC vs. TCGA comparisons of continuous and categorical variables, values were calculated using Student’s t test and Fisher’s exact test respectively