Skip to main content
Fig. 6 | European Journal of Medical Research

Fig. 6

From: An immune-related signature for optimizing prognosis prediction and treatment decision of hepatocellular carcinoma

Fig. 6

The 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 antiā€“PD-1 clinical response status (non-responder: nā€‰=ā€‰12; responder: nā€‰=ā€‰15). The differences between groups were compared with the Wilcoxon test (Pā€‰=ā€‰0.037). C, Rate of clinical response to antiā€“PD-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, Kaplanā€“Meier 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€‰<ā€‰0.05). 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€‰=ā€‰298). ns not significant, *Pā€‰<ā€‰0.05; ** Pā€‰<ā€‰0.01; *** Pā€‰<ā€‰0.001; **** Pā€‰<ā€‰0.0001

Back to article page