Fig. 6From: An immune-related signature for optimizing prognosis prediction and treatment decision of hepatocellular carcinomaThe prognostic value of signature in patients with anti-PD-L1 therapy. A, The prognostic value of IGS risk model in pan-cancers from TCGA datasets. B, Risk scores in groups with different antiāPD-1 clinical response status (non-responder: nā=ā12; responder: nā=ā15). The differences between groups were compared with the Wilcoxon test (Pā=ā0.037). C, Rate of clinical response to antiāPD-1 immunotherapy in high- or low- IGS risk groups in the GSE78220 cohort. Responder: complete response [CR]/partial response [PR], Non-responder: stable disease [SD]/progressive disease [PD]. D, The correlation of IGS risk score with immune cells of TME in IMvigor210 cohort. E, KaplanāMeier survival analysis of the subgroups in IMvigor210 urothelial cancer cohort. F, G, Dysfunction, MSI, T cell exclusion and TIDE score in different subgroups. H, Rate of clinical response to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in high- or low- IGS risk patients from IMvigor210 cohort (two-sided Fisher exact test, Pā<ā0.05). I, Rate of clinical response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in high- or low- IGS risk groups in the IMvigor210 cohort. Responder: CR/PR, Non-responder: SD/PD. J, ROC curves measuring the predictive value of the IGS risk score, TIDE, and TIS at 20Ā months in the IMvigor210 cohort (Nā=ā298). ns not significant, *Pā<ā0.05; ** Pā<ā0.01; *** Pā<ā0.001; **** Pā<ā0.0001Back to article page