Fig. 8

The role of LPRS in predicting the response to ICI therapy. A, B LPRS was correlated with TIDE score and MSI score in TCGA cohort. C The proportion of ICI therapy responders predicted by TIDE algorithm between high-LPRS and low-LPRS subgroups in TCGA cohort. D Comparison of LPRS levels between responders and non-responders in TCGA cohort. E The proportion of patients with response to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in IMvigor210 cohort (CR/PR vs. PD/SD: 31% vs. 69% in high-LPRS subgroup, CR/PR vs. PD/SD: 15% vs. 85% in low-LPRS subgroup; P = 0.001). F The proportion of patients with response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in GSE78220 cohort (CR/PR vs. PD/SD: 75% vs. 25% in high-LPRS subgroup, CR/PR vs. PD/SD: 33% vs. 67% in low-LPRS subgroup; P = 0.031). G Comparison of LPRS levels among the subgroups of different response to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in IMvigor210 cohort. H, I Comparison of LPRS levels among the subgroups of different response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in GSE78220 cohort. J, K The predictive power of LPRS in patients with anti-PD-L1/ anti-PD-1 immunotherapy (IMvigor210 cohort: AUC = 0.645; GSE78220 cohort: AUC = 0.769). CR complete response, PR partial response, PD progressive disease, SD stable disease. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, and ^ns No significance