Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 11;42(3):396–412.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.12.021

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Association of CAF types with clinical parameters

(A) Differential abundance testing of all cell types between patient groups defined by long (left) and short (right) overall survival, split by median. p Values < 0.05 are shown in blue, p values > 0.05 in grey.

(B) Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves for patient groups (PG) defined by CAF composition (PG 1–4). The table shows patient numbers according to tumor type and p values for comparison between groups (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.001).

(C) CoxPH-model for patient groups, corrected for tumor type and grade. Patient group 1 serves as a reference. p Values < 0.05 are shown in blue, p values > 0.05 in grey.

(D and E) Kaplan-Meier (plots for overall survival comparing patients stratified as high and low based on the median proportion of indicated CAF types. Good prognosis CAFs are in D, poor prognosis CAFs in E. All comparisons with significant differences (log rank testing p < 0.05) are shown.

(F) Lasso-regressed CoxPH model including mean CAF type proportions per patient, patient stratification into high and low for each CAF type (by median proportion), and all clinical data.