Tables at a glance

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Figures at a glance

Comments

Figure 1

Comments

Figure 2

Comments

Figure 3

Comments

Figure 4

Comments

Figure 5

Table 1

Characteristics	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Characteristics	HR	CI95	P Value	HR	CI95	P Value
Age	1.5	1.45-1.55	<0.001	1.35	1.3-1.393	<0.001
Race	0.92	0.88-0.96	<0.001	1.02	0.972-1.067	0.434
Grade	2.54	2.37-2.72	<0.001	1.39	1.285-1.494	<0.001
Laterality	1.88	1.77-1.98	<0.001	1.13	1.061-1.196	<0.001
Histology	0.88	0.86-0.89	<0.001	1.05	1.03-1.068	<0.001
Surgery	2.08	1.99-2.18	<0.001	1.2	1.135-1.26	<0.001
chemo	0.78	0.72-0.83	<0.001	1.41	1.308-1.51	<0.001
LNs	1.61	1.57-1.66	<0.001	1.07	1.013-1.124	0.014
Tumor size	0.86	0.83-0.9	<0.001	0.94	0.903-0.979	0.003
Node	2.82	2.66-2.98	<0.001	1.12	1.012-1.239	0.029
Metastasis	2.93	2.74-3.13	<0.001	0.77	0.703-0.846	<0.001
CA125	0.43	0.38-0.47	<0.001	0.78	0.698-0.863	<0.001
AJCC	2.04	1.98-2.1	<0.001	1.89	1.795-1.997	<0.001

Table 1: Univariate and multivariate analysis of the survival factors for OC patients in the SEER database, 2004–2015.

HR: hazard ratio; CI95: 95% confidence interval; LNs: number of positive lymph nodes.

Table 2

Characteristics	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Characteristics	HR	CI95	P.Value	HR	CI95	P.Value
Age	2.39	1.71-3.36	<0.001	2.06	1.464-2.907	<0.001
Grade	5.28	2.85-9.78	<0.001	2.97	1.443-6.133	0.003
Laterality	3.21	1.93-5.33	<0.001	1.66	0.947-2.922	0.076
LNs	1.71	1.35-2.17	<0.001	1.35	1.011-1.801	0.042

Table 2: Univariate and multivariate analysis of the survival factors for OC patients collected from China hospital

HR: hazard ratio; CI95: 95% confidence interval; LNs: number of positive lymph nodes.

Table 3

Group	Training		Validation
Group	C-index	SEM	C-index	SEM
<55	0.744861	0.009005	0.750366	0.009004
55~65	0.720112	0.009635	0.705735	0.010111
>=65	0.690095	0.009146	0.68785	0.008773

Table 3: C-index concordance index for both of training and validation sets among three groups

C-index: concordance index; SEM: Standard Error of Mean.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1: Screening flowchart for patients with ovarian cancer (OC)

FIGURE 2

Figure 2: Age at diagnosis served as a reliable prognostic factor for ovarian cancer (OC). A-C, OC patients from the SEER database, 2004–2015. The correlation of age at diagnosis and the five years prognosis (A). The overall survival times (B) and the Kaplan–Meier curves (C) among the patients with different age groups. D-F, OC patients from China hospital, 2004–2015. The correlation of age at diagnosis and the five years prognosis (D). The overall survival times (E) and the Kaplan–Meier curves (F) among the patients with different age groups.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3: Nomogram to predict the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival probability of ovarian cancer (OC) patients with less than 55 (A), 55-65 (B), and more than 65 years old (C).

FIGURE 4

Figure 4: Survival analysis of the risk group in ovarian cancer (OC) patients with less than 55 (A), 55-65 (B), and more than 65 years old (C).

FIGURE 5

Figure 5: Construction an age-based DNA methylation prognostic signature. (A) The Kaplan–Meier survival plots of OC patients grouped by the age at diagnosis. (B) The heatmap of methylation profile of the significant different CpG sites between OC tumor and normal group. (C) Volcano diagram shown the methylation leve of CpG sites, that significantly related with OC outcomes. (D) Heatmap of the positive and negative correlation of methylation leve of CpG sites with age. (E) The distribution of the hazards ratios of the 12 CpG sites. (F) Table showing the coefficients of 13 CpG sites by LASSO Cox regression assay. (G) Coefficients of 13 CpG sites were selected by the lambda with the minimum binomial deviance marked by the black dashed line. (H) The LASSO binomial model fitting process. Each curve represents a variable.