Table 2.

LOH patterns in prospective cohort and retrospective cohort

StudyLOH patternsaAll patientsNonprogressing casesProgressing casesHR (95% CI)P
Prospective cohort296255 (86.1)b41 (13.9)
Presence of LOHc
 No LOH3535 (100.0)0 (0.0)1
 Any LOH252211 (83.7)41 (16.3)NA
3p and 9p
 3p and 9p R10099 (99.0)1 (1.0)10.002
 3p and/or 9p LOH191152 (79.6)39 (20.4)22.6 (3.1—164. 5)
9p
 9p R130128 (98.5)2 (1.5)1<0.001
 9p LOH161124 (77.0)37 (23.0)17.0 (4.1–70.8)
3p
 3p R185163 (88.1)22 (11.0)10.48
 3p LOH10690 (84.9)16 (15.1)1.3 (0.7–2. 4)
Retrospective cohort11687 (75·.0)29 (25.0)
Presence of LOHc
 No LOH3636 (100.0)0 (0.0)1
 Any LOH6839 (57.4)29 (42.6)NA
3p and 9pd
 3p and 9p R4948 (98.0)1 (2.0)10.003
 3p and/or 9p LOH6032 (53.3)28 (46.7)21.1 (2.9—155.8)
9p
 9p R6659 (89.4)7 (10.6)10.002
 9p LOH4725 (53.2)22 (46.8)3.8 (1.6–8.9)
3p
 3p R7464 (86.5)10 (13.5)1<0.001
 3p LOH3618 (50.0)18 (50.0)3.9 (1.8–8.4)
  • aLOH, loss of heterozygosity; R, retention (no LOH); NI, non-informative. Due to NI, total numbers of cases for each reported LOH pattern may not add up to the total number of subjects.

  • bRow percentage is reported.

  • cFor the “No LOH” category, subjects need to have retention in all chromosome arms tested. For the “Any LOH” category, subjects can have some chromosome arms to be non-informative as long as at least one chromosome arm was LOH.

  • dRef. 7. Values in the Table differ slightly from original publication due to additional analyses of samples since publication of study. The previous publication included 7 cases that we categorised as low-or high-risk with NI on either 3p or 9p.