Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 28;72(6):1395–1403. doi: 10.1007/s00262-022-03324-z

Table 3.

Cox proportional hazards model of prognosticators for PFS

Characteristics Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
P HR(95%CI) P HR(95%CI)
Age (> 60 y vs ≤ 60 y) 0.279 0.75 (0.44–1.26)
Sex (male vs female) 0.321 0.99 (0.97–1.01)
ECOG (PS1 vs PS0) 0.061 1.69 (0.98–2.93) 0.168 1.48(0.85–2.58)
Surgery (Yes vs No) 0.293 0.73 (0.41–1.31)
TACE (Yes vs No) 0.509 1.95 (0.27–14.16)
Ablation (Yes vs No) 0.273 1.36 (0.78–2.36)
Second line
(TKI-ICI vs TKI)  < 0.001 0.34 (0.2–0.56)  < 0.001 0.35(0.21–0.59)
Number (> 3 vs ≤ 3) 0.173 0.68 (0.4–1.18)
Size (> 5 cm vs ≤ 5 cm) 0.508 0.84 (0.49–1.42)
PVTT (Yes vs No) 0.891 0.97 (0.58–1.6)
Metastases (Yes vs No) 0.321 0.78 (0.47–1.28)
Child–Pugh (B7 vs A) 0.808 0.93 (0.53–1.64)
BCLC (C vs B) 0.476 0.81 (0.46–1.44)
AFP (> 400 ng/mL vs ≤ 400 ng/mL) 0.342 1.28 (0.77–2.13)

PFS progression-free survival, HR(95%CI) hazard ratio(95% confidence interval), ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, TACE trans-arterial chemoembolization, TKI tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ICI immune checkpoint inhibitor, PVTT portal vein tumor thrombosis, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, AFP alpha-fetoprotein