Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2020 Mar 27;2(1):vdaa042. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdaa042

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 1. — Poor prognosis in mIDH patients from TCGA with a high mutational burden. (A) Classification of glioma patients according to the subtype and mutational burden used in this study. (B) Kaplan–Meier survival of GBM-wtIDH patients with high mutational burden (red; N = 71) or low mutational burden (black; N = 208) from TCGA. There was no significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.203, CI [1.644–0.87]). (C) Linear regression model of patients’ “days to death” versus mutational burden/patient in GBM-wtIDH (N = 218). There was no correlation between patients’ “days to death” and mutational load. (D) Kaplan–Meier curves of LGG-wtIDH patients classified according to the mutational burden in TCGA. There is no difference in survival between LGG-wtIDHhigh (N = 72) and LGG-wtIDHlow (N = 22) (HR = 0.58, CI [0.29–1.125]). (E) Linear regression model of patients’ “days to death” versus mutation burden/patient in LGG-wtIDH (N = 51). There was no correlation between patients’ “days to death” and mutational load. (F) LGG-mIDH-Ahigh (N = 189) has statistically significant decreased median survival as compared to LGG-mIDHlow (N = 63) (HR = 0.3891, CI [0.2193–0.6905]). (G) Linear regression model of patients’ “days to death” versus mutation burden/patient in LGG-mIDH-A (N = 51). There is a significant correlation between patients’ days to death and mutation load/patient in LGG-mIDH-A (R = −0.31, P < .001). (H) LGG-mIDH-Ohigh (N = 74) has statistically significantly decreased median survival as compared to LGG-mIDHlow (N = 95) (HR = 0.3198, CI [0.1343–0.7616]). (I) Linear regression model of patients’ “days to death” versus mutation burden/patient in LGG-mIDH-O (N = 23). There is a significant correlation between patients’ days to death and mutation load/patient in LGG-mIDH-O (R = −0.54, P < .001).