Second, although both NPM1 and CEBPA mutations have prognostic value in NK AML and some previous study also suggested the association of NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations [ 24, 25, 27], our present study did not include the data of NPM1 and CEBPA mutation status and, therefore, comprehensive analysis in terms of mutational relations among three genes (NPM1, CEBPA, and DNMT3A) could not be performed.
Characterisation of the differential activation of key pathways and candidate genes according to the TP53 mutation status may therefore identify mechanisms correlated with TP53 mutation status in breast cancer.
Ideally, there would be some histologic feature to help identify which cases are likely to have discordant mutation status and therefore indicate that more than just the largest tumor should be tested.
Therefore, HER1 mutation status might be a predictive factor for HDI combination with HER1 inhibitors in this setting.
Therefore, while mutation status does correlate with survival in our series of advanced stage cancers, the primary difference is in the rate of missense mutations.
Therefore, EGFR mutation status showed a discordance of 28% (7 of 25 patients) (McNemar test, P=0.688) between the primary tumour and corresponding metastasis (Table 3).
Therefore we correlated FGFR3 mutation status with tumour grade.
Therefore, the authors concluded that KRAS mutation status was not a predictive factor for chemotherapy [19].
The signature is, therefore, more comprehensive and predictive than the mutation status alone.
Therefore additional information about PKD1 mutation status was not required, as assignment to the PKD2 group did not require this.
