Back

Hypoxia-associated gene signature for uterine cervical cancer

Datta, A.; Biolatti, L. V.; Reardon, M.; Bigos, K.; Lunj, S.; Eke, H.; Desai, S.; Hyder, P.; Reeves, K.; Barraclough, L.; Haslett, K.; Fjeldbo, C. S.; Lyng, H.; O'Connor, J. P. B.; West, C. M. L.; Hoskin, P.; Choudhury, A.

2026-03-25 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.03.20.26348602 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Background Tumour hypoxia is a major determinant of treatment resistance and poor prognosis in cervical cancer but remains difficult to assess in clinical practice. Gene expression signatures offer a potential means to characterise hypoxia-related biology. This study aimed to develop and validate a hypoxia-associated gene expression signature for cervical cancer. Methods RNA sequencing was performed on five cervical cancer cell lines exposed to normoxia (21% O?) and hypoxia (1% O?). Differentially expressed genes were mapped to The Cancer Genome Atlas cervical cancer cohort (TCGA-CESC) to train a 55-gene hypoxia classifier using k-means clustering and Prediction Analysis for Microarrays. The model was validated in an institutional Manchester cohort (n=153) and two public datasets from Seoul (n=300) and Oslo (n=283). Results The Manchester 55-gene signature was enriched for canonical hypoxia pathways. In the Manchester cohort, hypoxia classification correlated with advanced FIGO stage, nodal involvement, tumour size ? 4 cm, and hydronephrosis (adjusted p<0.05). Hypoxic tumours showed reduced overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in all cohorts. In multivariable models, the signature remained independently prognostic for OS in both TCGA (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10-2.60, p=0.012) and Manchester (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.08-3.51, p=0.026). A direct comparison with a published 6-gene hypoxia signature in the Oslo cohort demonstrated 71% concordance in classification. Conclusions Our 55-gene signature should be tested prospectively in trials to assess its ability to stratify patients for hypoxia-targeted therapies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
22.3%
2
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
5
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.9%
6
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.3%
8
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
9
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
10
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
11
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
12
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
13
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
14
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.2%
15
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
16
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
17
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
Translational Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
24
Cell Communication and Signaling
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
26
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%