Table 3. Exploratory analysis of effects of prognostic factors on clinical outcome.
| End point | Factor | RR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Response | Peritoneal involvement: | 0.43 |
| Yes vs no | (0.13–1.47) | |
| Surgery of primary tumour: | 1.78 | |
| Yes vs no | (0.76–4.15) | |
| Baseline Karnofsky status: | 0.41* | |
| ⩽80 vs >80 | (0.17–0.95) | |
| Treatment effect: | 0.42* | |
| ELF vs ILF | (0.18–0.97) | |
| Progression | Peritoneal involvement: | 1.15 |
| Yes vs no | (0.67–1.96) | |
| Surgery of primary tumour: | 0.86 | |
| Yes vs no | (0.58–1.29) | |
| ELF vs ILF | 1.7 | |
| (in patients with Karnofsky status ⩽80) | (0.96–3.0) | |
| ELF vs ILF | 0.8 | |
| (in patients with Karnofsky status >80) | (0.47–1.39) | |
| Number of organs: | 1.99** | |
| >1 vs 1 | (1.21–3.28) | |
| Site of primary tumour: | 1.91** | |
| oesophagogastric vs stomach | (1.2–3.04) | |
| Death | Peritoneal involvement: | 0.85 |
| Yes vs no | (0.42–1.75) | |
| Surgery of primary tumour: | 0.69 | |
| Yes vs no | (0.46–1.06) | |
| ELF vs ILF | 2.41 | |
| (in patients with peritoneal involvement) | (0.99–5.82) | |
| ELF vs ILF | 1.01 | |
| (in patients without peritoneal involvement) | (0.64–1.59) | |
| Number of organs: | 2.56** | |
| >1 vs 1 | (1.48–4.42) | |
| Baseline Karnofsky status: | 1.84** | |
| ⩽80 vs >80 | (1.21–2.8) |
RR=risk ratio; CI=confidence interval.
A risk value >1 shows an increased likelihood of the clinical outcome in favour of the first of the two compared terms. ELF, etoposide+LV (leucovorin)+5-FU(5-fluorouracil); ILF, irinotecan+LV+5-FU; EJ, oesophagogastric junction.
*P<0.05.
**<0.01 by Wald χ2 test.