Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 14;13:1077342. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1077342

Figure 4.

Figure 4

The relationship between HFRS score and clinicopathological features in BC patients. (A, D, G) The boxplots shows the comparison of HFRS risk score of BC subgroups stratified with different clinicopathological features (age>65 or<=65; positive or negative lymph node status; III/IV or I/II tumor stage) in TCGA cohort. (B, C) Comparison of the overall survival of patients with high- and low- HFRS risk score in age>65 (B) and age<=65 (C) subgroups. (E, F) KM curves to show the different overall survival of patients with high or low HFRS risk scores in lymph node positive (E) and lymph node negative (F) subgroups. (H, I) Comparison the survival of patients with high or low HFRS risk score in tumor stage III/IV (H) and tumor stage I/II (I) subgroups. (J–M) The boxplots shows the significant difference HFRS risk score levels of patients with different clinicopathological features(age, tumor stage, lymph node status and primary tumor grade) in METABRIC cohort.