Uding defects in the regulation of mitoses, chromosomal segregation, and spindle assembly, may also have an unfavourable effect on the overall viability and fitness of cancer cells [26,27]. Consequently, there may be a critical level at which the disadvantageous effects of genomic instability on patient survival are outweighed by the detrimental effects on cancer cell viability. This hypothesis is supported by recent studies on survival in breast, ovarian, and other 1655472 cancers, indicating a beneficial effect of extreme genomic instability [28,29]. However, in most of these studies genomic instability has only been estimated indirectly on the basis of gene expression based signatures. The capacity to repair genomic damage is crucial for cells to react on DNA damaging agents. Allelic imbalance or mutations in key checkpoint proteins result in impaired DNA repair and thussuggests increased sensitivity to DNA damaging chemotherapeutic drugs [30]. Thus, the extent of copy number variation may be an indicator of malignancy on one hand and sensitivity to therapy on the other. However, to measure directly the DNA repair capacity of cell lines or clinical specimens is difficult to perform, since the current genetic assays still lack high specificity [31]. In this study, we applied a numeric measure of genomic instability, which we termed the Total Aberration Index 
(TAI), to assess the level of genomic aberrations in SOC. Based on highthroughput DNA copy number data, we investigated the relationship between survival and the degree of genomic instability within two independent datasets of predominantly high-grade SOC patients.Materials and Methods Ethics statementThe study including TA02 supplier Patients of the Norwegian cohort was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) board (Reference No: S-01127). Exception from written informed consent was given from the REC authorities based on patients being deceased and all materials used were remaining material after diagnosis. The study including patients of the Australian cohort was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, University of Melbourne and all participating hospitals. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.Table 1. Clinicopathological characteristics of the Norwegian and Australian SOC patients.Norwegian cohort All Patients Age Total cases Mean (SD) Range Age groups ,45 45?5 .55 Stage II III (B+C) IV Grade 1 2 3 Chemotherapy Sensitive Resistant Progression Progression No progression PFS (ML240 months) Median (95 CI) OS (months) Median (95 CI) 74 (100 ) 60 (11) 38?1 7 (10 ) 15 (20 ) 52 (70 ) 3 (4 ) 50 (68 ) 21 (28 ) 3 (4 ) 21 (28 ) 50 (68 ) 51 (69 ) 23 (31 ) 69 (93 ) 5 (7 ) 16 14?1 32 25?7 TAI,med. 37 (50 ) 60 (11) 39?9 4 (11 ) 6 (16 ) 27 (73 ) 1 (3 ) 26 (70 ) 10 (27 ) 2 (5 ) 7(19 ) 28(76 ) 21 (57 ) 16 (43 ) 36 (97 ) 1 (3 ) 15 10?8 25 17?Australian cohort TAI.med. 37 (50 ) 60 (10) 38?1 3 (8 ) 9 (24 ) 25 (68 ) 2 (5 ) 24 (65 ) 11 (30 ) 1 (3 ) 14 (38 ) 22 (60 ) 30 (81 ) 7 (19 ) 33 (89 ) 4 (11 ) 18 15?6 50 34?7 0.358 0.043 0.186 0.958 0.p*All 70 (100 ) 57 (11) 23?0 6 (9 ) 25 (36 ) 39 (56 ) 0 (0 ) 62 (89 ) 8 (11 ) 4 (6 ) 24 (34 ) 40 (57 ) 39 (56 ) 31 (44 ) 63 (90 ) 7 (10 ) 15 11?0 40 28?TAI,med.1 35 (50 ) 55 (12) 23?8 5 (14 ) 12 (34 ) 18 (51 ) 0 (0 ) 30 (86 ) 5 (14 ) 2 (6 ) 10 (29 ) 22 (63 ) 17 (49 ) 18 (51 ) 3 (9 ) 32 (91 ) 12 10?9 25 19?TAI.med.1 35 (50 ).Uding defects in the regulation of 
mitoses, chromosomal segregation, and spindle assembly, may also have an unfavourable effect on the overall viability and fitness of cancer cells [26,27]. Consequently, there may be a critical level at which the disadvantageous effects of genomic instability on patient survival are outweighed by the detrimental effects on cancer cell viability. This hypothesis is supported by recent studies on survival in breast, ovarian, and other 1655472 cancers, indicating a beneficial effect of extreme genomic instability [28,29]. However, in most of these studies genomic instability has only been estimated indirectly on the basis of gene expression based signatures. The capacity to repair genomic damage is crucial for cells to react on DNA damaging agents. Allelic imbalance or mutations in key checkpoint proteins result in impaired DNA repair and thussuggests increased sensitivity to DNA damaging chemotherapeutic drugs [30]. Thus, the extent of copy number variation may be an indicator of malignancy on one hand and sensitivity to therapy on the other. However, to measure directly the DNA repair capacity of cell lines or clinical specimens is difficult to perform, since the current genetic assays still lack high specificity [31]. In this study, we applied a numeric measure of genomic instability, which we termed the Total Aberration Index (TAI), to assess the level of genomic aberrations in SOC. Based on highthroughput DNA copy number data, we investigated the relationship between survival and the degree of genomic instability within two independent datasets of predominantly high-grade SOC patients.Materials and Methods Ethics statementThe study including patients of the Norwegian cohort was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) board (Reference No: S-01127). Exception from written informed consent was given from the REC authorities based on patients being deceased and all materials used were remaining material after diagnosis. The study including patients of the Australian cohort was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, University of Melbourne and all participating hospitals. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.Table 1. Clinicopathological characteristics of the Norwegian and Australian SOC patients.Norwegian cohort All Patients Age Total cases Mean (SD) Range Age groups ,45 45?5 .55 Stage II III (B+C) IV Grade 1 2 3 Chemotherapy Sensitive Resistant Progression Progression No progression PFS (months) Median (95 CI) OS (months) Median (95 CI) 74 (100 ) 60 (11) 38?1 7 (10 ) 15 (20 ) 52 (70 ) 3 (4 ) 50 (68 ) 21 (28 ) 3 (4 ) 21 (28 ) 50 (68 ) 51 (69 ) 23 (31 ) 69 (93 ) 5 (7 ) 16 14?1 32 25?7 TAI,med. 37 (50 ) 60 (11) 39?9 4 (11 ) 6 (16 ) 27 (73 ) 1 (3 ) 26 (70 ) 10 (27 ) 2 (5 ) 7(19 ) 28(76 ) 21 (57 ) 16 (43 ) 36 (97 ) 1 (3 ) 15 10?8 25 17?Australian cohort TAI.med. 37 (50 ) 60 (10) 38?1 3 (8 ) 9 (24 ) 25 (68 ) 2 (5 ) 24 (65 ) 11 (30 ) 1 (3 ) 14 (38 ) 22 (60 ) 30 (81 ) 7 (19 ) 33 (89 ) 4 (11 ) 18 15?6 50 34?7 0.358 0.043 0.186 0.958 0.p*All 70 (100 ) 57 (11) 23?0 6 (9 ) 25 (36 ) 39 (56 ) 0 (0 ) 62 (89 ) 8 (11 ) 4 (6 ) 24 (34 ) 40 (57 ) 39 (56 ) 31 (44 ) 63 (90 ) 7 (10 ) 15 11?0 40 28?TAI,med.1 35 (50 ) 55 (12) 23?8 5 (14 ) 12 (34 ) 18 (51 ) 0 (0 ) 30 (86 ) 5 (14 ) 2 (6 ) 10 (29 ) 22 (63 ) 17 (49 ) 18 (51 ) 3 (9 ) 32 (91 ) 12 10?9 25 19?TAI.med.1 35 (50 ).