Research Paper Volume 15, Issue 21 pp 12330—12368

Figure 13. Independent prognostic analysis and correlations of risk score with immunological features. (A) Independent prognostic analysis for risk score using univariate Cox regression analysis. Risk score was significantly correlated with the overall survival of LUAD patients, and could serve as an independent prognosticator in predicting the survival of LUAD patients. (B) Independent prognostic analysis for risk score using multivariate Cox regression analysis. Risk score was significantly correlated with the overall survival of LUAD patients, and could serve as an independent prognosticator in predicting the survival of LUAD patients. (C) Construction of a nomogram predicting the survival. A nomogram for predicting 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival was constructed. (D) Comparisons of 22 immune cell types between high- and low-risk subgroups. Some immune cell types had significant differences between two risk subgroups. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. (E) Comparison of immune infiltration score. LUAD patients in the low-risk subgroup had higher immune scores than those in the high-risk subgroup. *p < 0.05. (F) Comparisons of activities of 10 oncogenic signaling pathways between two risk subgroups. The activities of cell cycle, MYC, NOTCH and NRF1 pathways had significant differences, and three oncogenic signaling pathways (cell cycle, MYC, NOTCH) had higher activities in the high-risk subgroup. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. (G) Comparisons of tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion (TIDE) score, interferon-gamma (IFNG), T cell dysfunction (Dysfunction), T cell exclusion (Exclusion), tumor-associated macrophages M2 (TAM.M2) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC). Except IFNG, those terms had significant differences between two risk subgroups, and TIDE, Exclusion and MDSC in the high-risk subgroup were significantly higher than those in the low-risk subgroup. Dysfunction and TAM. M2 in the high-risk subgroup were significantly lower than those in the low-risk subgroup. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and ****p < 0.0001. (H) Comparisons of estimated IC50 values for 6 conventional chemotherapy agents. The estimated IC50 values for 6 chemotherapy agents including erlotinib, sunitinib, paclitaxel, VX-680, TAE684 and crizotinib in the high-risk subgroup were significantly lower than those in the low-risk subgroup. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and ****p < 0.0001.