Fig. 3
Clinical characteristics analysis based on CAFscore and nomogram construction in the TCGA-COAD. (A) CAFscore was positively correlated with CAF_EPIC, CAF_MCPcount, CAF_TIDE, CAF_xCell, and Stromalscore. The numbers inside the boxes represented the correlation coefficients in the analysis; the deeper the yellow color, the higher the correlation. (B) Heatmap showed that the expression of 3 model genes and CAF-related marker genes. (C) The chart displayed the correlation between CAFscore and mRNA expression of CAF-related marker genes. Red meant positive correlation. The larger the correlation coefficient, the darker the color. (D) The PCA diagram demonstrated the ability of the CAFscore to divide samples into two subgroups. (E) The riskplot displayed poor survival status in the high CAFscore subgroup. (F) The Kaplan–Meier analysis evaluated the prognosis. (G) Distribution of CAFscore in stage, classification of T, N, and M, status of survival, progression, and perineural invasion. Distribution of CAFscore in the TCGA-COAD stage II/III samples (n = 213) with tumor location data. (H) A nomogram based on the CAFscore and clinical indicators provided a reference for 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival predictions. (I) The calibration curve displayed the fitting of the prediction models to the actual events. (J) Time-dependent ROC curves were used to evaluate the predictive ability of the nomogram for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS. (K) The C-index of the nomogram was totally over 0.65 during the ten years. (L) DCA curve showed the accuracy of the nomogram and the existing clinical indicators. (M) CAFscore was served as an independent prognostic factor. ***, p < 0.001; **, p < 0.01; *, p < 0.05.
