Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 22;15(9):2414. doi: 10.3390/cancers15092414

Table 4.

Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis: overall survival in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma.

Overall Survival Univariable Analyses Multivariable Analysis
Parameter p-Value 95% CI HR p-Value 95% CI Adj HR
Age > 60 yrs vs. * ≤ 60 yrs 0.081 0.940–2.925 1.658 - - -
Sex m vs. * f 0.615 0.736–1.678 1.112 - - -
Progression vs. * no progression 0.008 1.178–3.001 1.880 0.451 0.324–12.674 2.025
Pelvic localization vs. ureter vs. * both 0.711 0.818–1.344 1.048 - - -
Growth patterns:
* Papillary vs. papillary-inverted/solid
* Papillary vs. solid
* Papillary vs. mixed type
* Papillary vs. micropapillary
* Papillary vs. sarcomatoid
0.007
0.961
0.010
0.160
0.077
<0.001

0.504–1.919
1.214–4.066
0.864–2.432
0.868–15.725
2.899–35.123

0.983
2.222
1.449
3.694
10.09
0.002
0.049
0.763
0.209
0.579
<0.001

0.032–0.990
0.175–10.757
0.556–14.580
0.078–109.66
7.614–1364.9

0.178
1.373
2.846
2.826
101.942
Necrosis vs. * no necrosis 0.004 1.230–3.046 1.936 0.149 0.752–6.505 2.212
Chronic lymphofollicular inflammation vs. * no inflammation 0.983 0.558–1.771 0.994 - - -
ERBB2 score ** 0 vs. 1+ vs. 2+ vs. * 3+ 0.193 0.937–1.380 1.137 - - -
ERBB2 amplification vs. * ERBB2 <2.0 0.176 0.827–2.822 1.528 - -
ERBB2 gain or amplification vs. * no ERBB2 gain or amplification 0.057 0.986–2.485 1.565 0.114 0.623–83.766 7.222
Platin vs. * no platin-based therapy 0.005 1.243–3.316 2.031 0.043 0.003–0.914 0.049
ERBB2 status and CT 0.006 0.020
ERBB2 negative and CT vs. * ERBB2 negative and no CT 0.009 1.227–4.223 2.276 0.003 0.009–0.377 0.059
ERBB2 positive and CT vs. * ERBB2 negative and no CT 0.620 0.504–3.160 1.262 0.021 0.003–0.624 0.046
ERBB2 positive and no CT vs. * ERBB2 negative and no CT 0.003 1.341–4.028 2.324 0.086 0.003–1.458 0.071
Grading <0.001 0.071
G2 vs. * G1 0.125 0.828–4.709 1.974 0.738 0.169–3.522 0.772
G3 vs. * G1 0.001 1.692–9.185 3.942 0.027 0.001–0.663 0.026
pT <0.001 0.004
pT1 vs. * pTa 0.060 0.970–4.310 2.045 0.003 2.409–68.305 12.827
pT2 vs. * pTa 0.040 1.044–5.859 2.474 0.019 1.711–415-792 26.674
T3 vs. * pTa <0.001 1.673–6.410 3.274 0.012 2.346–1021.94 48.959
pT4 vs. * pTa <0.001 5.006–23.279 10.795 <0.001 11.761–8238.9 311.28
pN1 or pN2 vs. * pN0 <0.001 1.921–5.125 3.138 0.678 1.189–4.677 2.358
cM10 vs. * cM0 <0.001 2.910–10.993 5.656 0.384 0.346–15.830 2.340
Lymphatic invasion (L1 vs. * L0) <0.001 1.525–3.602 2.344 <0.001 4.130–71.603 17.196
Venous invasion (V1 or V2 vs. * V0) <0.001 1.483–3.465 2.267 0.090 0.095–1.187 0.335
Perineural invasion (Pn1 vs. * Pn0) <0.001 1.105–12.198 3.6718 0.442 0.229–1.903 0.660
Residual status (R1 or R2 vs. * R0) <0.001 2.917–7.280 4.608 <0.001 4.116–76.914 17.793

Abbreviations: Adj—adjusted, CI—confidence interval, CT—platin-based polychemotherapy, HR—hazard ratio, OS—overall survival, vs.—versus; Notes: * reference category, ** ERBB2 immunoscoring scheme for gastric adenocarcinoma [30]. To select OS influencing factors for the multiple regression approach, the cut-off was set as p = 0.060.