Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 8;30(4):793–802. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-0561

Table 3.

Multivariable Cox analysis in the combined MONALEESA dataset.

Cohort Variable Adjusted HRa (95% CI) P value
Ribociclib Age 1.01 (1.00–1.02) 0.24
Race
 Asian 1.00 (–)
 White 0.98 (0.66–1.45) 0.93
 Other 1.35 (0.71–2.57) 0.35
 Unknown 1.07 (0.56–2.07) 0.84
CT yes vs. no 1.15 (0.84–1.59) 0.39
Subtype
 Luminal A 1.00 (–)
 Luminal B 1.16 (0.86–1.57) 0.32
 HER2E 1.83 (1.33–2.52) 0.00022
 Basal-like 7.22 (3.81–13.70) <0.0001
ECOG PS 1 vs. 0 1.73 (1.33–2.24) <0.0001
De novo disease vs. not 0.55 (0.34–0.87) 0.011
Visceral disease vs. not 1.27 (0.93–1.74) 0.14
Bone only vs. not 1.03 (0.69–1.54) 0.88
Histologic grade
 Poorly differentiated/undifferentiated histologic grade 1.41 (1.05–1.89) 0.022
 Unknown histologic grade 1.35 (0.97–1.89) 0.073
 Well-differentiated histologic grade 0.87 (0.52–1.45) 0.59
No. of metastatic sites ≥3 vs. fewer 1.11 (0.84–1.47) 0.44
Tumor type (metastatic vs. primary) 1.11 (0.84–1.48) 0.46
ETS1b 0.76 (0.48–1.20) 0.24
ETS2c 1.28 (0.85–1.91) 0.24
ETS3d 1.24 (0.72–2.12) 0.44
Placebo Age 1.01 (1.00–1.02) 0.21
Race
 Asian 1.00 (–)
 White 0.98 (0.67–1.42) 0.90
 Other 1.18 (0.56–2.51) 0.66
 Unknown 0.55 (0.27–1.14) 0.11
CT yes vs. no 1.55 (1.09–2.21) 0.016
Subtype
 Luminal A 1.00 (–)
 Luminal B 1.47 (1.08–2.00) 0.014
 HER2E 2.87 (1.93–4.26) <0.0001
 Basal-like 2.35 (1.20–4.57) 0.012
ECOG 1 vs. 0 1.32 (1.00–1.74) 0.052
De novo disease vs. not 1.09 (0.64–1.83) 0.75
Visceral disease vs. not 1.26 (0.89–1.79) 0.20
Bone only vs. not 1.25 (0.82–1.90) 0.29
Histologic grade
 Poorly differentiated/undifferentiated histologic grade 1.11 (0.81–1.52) 0.53
 Unknown histologic grade 1.16 (0.80–1.68) 0.43
 Well-differentiated histologic grade 0.84 (0.52–1.36) 0.49
No. of metastatic sites ≥3 vs. fewer 1.16 (0.85–1.58) 0.35
Tumor type (metastatic vs. primary) 1.16 (0.84–1.61) 0.36
ETS1b 0.82 (0.51–1.33) 0.42
ETS2c 1.65 (1.04–2.63) 0.034
ETS3d 1.43 (0.70–2.89) 0.33
All patients Age 1.01 (0.998–1.02) 0.10
Race
 Asian 1.00 (–)
 White 0.97 (0.74–1.26) 0.79
 Other 1.27 (0.79–2.05) 0.33
 Unknown 0.79 (0.49–1.28) 0.34
CT yes vs. no 1.32 (1.04–1.67) 0.021
Subtype
 Luminal A 1.00 (–)
 Luminal B 1.42 (1.06–1.91) 0.019
 HER2E 2.66 (1.82–3.88) <0.0001
 Basal-like 2.26 (1.19–4.28) 0.013
ECOG PS 1 vs. 0 1.52 (1.26–1.83) <0.0001
De novo disease vs. not 0.72 (0.51–1.01) 0.060
Visceral disease vs. not 1.26 (1.01–1.59) 0.045
Bone only vs. not 1.11 (0.83–1.47) 0.48
Histologic grade
 Poorly differentiated/undifferentiated histologic grade 1.28 (1.04–1.59) 0.021
 Unknown histologic grade 1.31 (1.03–1.68) 0.028
 Well-differentiated histologic grade 0.89 (0.63–1.25) 0.49
No. of metastatic sites ≥3 vs. fewer 1.14 (0.93–1.39) 0.22
Tumor type (metastatic vs. primary) 1.15 (0.94–1.42) 0.17
ETS1b 0.76 (0.55–1.05) 0.093
ETS2c 1.40 (1.04–1.89) 0.026
ETS3d 1.33 (0.87–2.01) 0.19
Treatment (ribociclib vs. placebo) 0.77 (0.60–0.99) 0.039
Treatment*luminal B 0.83 (0.55–1.25) 0.36
Treatment*HER2E 0.69 (0.42–1.12) 0.13
Treatment*basal-like 3.62 (1.51–8.69) 0.004

Abbreviations: CT, chemotherapy; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; ET, endocrine therapy; ETS, ET sensitive; HER2E, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–enriched.

aObtained from multivariable Cox model including age, race, prior chemotherapy, ECOG PS, presence of visceral disease (liver/lung metastases), presence of bone-only metastases, histological grade, number of metastatic sites, prior ET, presence of de novo metastatic disease, and tumor type (primary or metastatic) as covariates.

bETS1 includes patients considered ET sensitive who exhibited progression >12 months after end of ET.

cETS2 includes patients considered ET sensitive who exhibited progression at or within 12 months of end of ET.

dETS3 includes patients who received second-line ET.