Table 3.
Case-control study: implication of tobacco and polymorphisms in XPC, ERCC2 and ERCC5 on bladder cancer development
| 95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| groupa | B | Standard error | Wald | Df | P value | Exp (B) = OR | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |
| Cases | Intercept | -1,10 | 1,08 | 1,03 | 1 | ,31 | |||
| Sex | ,30 | ,42 | ,53 | 1 | ,46 | 1,36 | ,59 | 3,11 | |
| Age range | 1,82 | ,39 | 21,99 | 1 | ,00 | 6,22 | 2,89 | 13,35 | |
| [XPC (A/C) = AA] | -,85 | ,34 | 6,06 | 1 | ,01 | ,42 | ,21 | ,84 | |
| [XPC (A/C) = AC] | -1,01 | ,34 | 8,80 | 1 | ,00 | ,36 | ,18 | ,70 | |
| [XPC (A/C) = CC] | 0b | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | . | |
| [ERCC2 (A/C) = AA] | ,12 | ,40 | ,10 | 1 | ,75 | 1,13 | ,51 | 2,51 | |
| [ERCC2 (A/C) = AC] | -,16 | ,40 | ,15 | 1 | ,69 | ,85 | ,38 | 1,90 | |
| [ERCC2 (A/C) = CC] | 0b | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | . | |
| [ERCC5 (G/C) = CC] | ,55 | ,38 | 2,11 | 1 | ,14 | 1,74 | ,82 | 3,71 | |
| [ERCC5 (G/C) = GC] | -,22 | ,24 | ,85 | 1 | ,35 | ,79 | ,49 | 1,29 | |
| [ERCC5 (G/C) = GG] | 0b | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | . | |
| [Tobacco PY = 0] | -1,18 | ,32 | 13,03 | 1 | ,00 | ,30 | ,16 | ,58 | |
| [Tobacco PY = 1-19] | -1,97 | ,45 | 19,17 | 1 | ,00 | ,13 | ,05 | ,33 | |
| [Tobacco PY ≥ 20] | 0b | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | . | |
This reduced model was obtained after adjustment to sex and age; a: The reference category is controls group; b: this parameter is set to zero because it is redundant; PY: pack years. Logistic regression: Number of observation = 386, Chi-square: 88.409, p = 0.000, Pseudo R-square = 0.205, Log likelihood = 206,541