Table 2.
Univariable Cox regression models: estimated hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival with 95 % confidence interval (CI) and p value of the likelihood ratio test for omnibus test
| Clinical and biological variables | Available cases | HR | 95 % CI | p* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M stage | 183 | 0.030 | ||
| M1 vs. M0 | 20 vs. 111 | 1.822 | 0.721–4.605 | |
| M2/3 vs. M0 | 52 vs. 111 | 2.417 | 1.254–4.660 | |
| M1 vs. M2/3 | 20 vs. 52 | 0.754 | 0.298–1.907 | |
| Reference confirmed M0 stage | 184 | 0.010 | ||
| No vs. yes | 73 vs. 111 | 2.231 | 1.208–4.122 | |
| Treatment stratum | 179 | 0.003 | ||
| HIT 2000 BIS 4 vs. HIT 2000 AB 4 | 22 vs. 96 | 2.758 | 1.066–7.136 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 AB 4 vs. HIT 2000 AB 4 | 48 vs. 96 | 3.082 | 1.428–6.653 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 after amendment vs. HIT 2000 AB 4 | 11 vs. 96 | 3.763 | 1.190–11.878 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 before amendment vs. HIT 2000 AB 4 | 2 vs. 96 | 18.858 | 3.988–89.163 | |
| HIT 2000 BIS 4 vs. MET-HIT 2000 AB 4 | 22 vs. 48 | 0.895 | 0.367–2.180 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 after amendment vs. MET-HIT 2000 AB 4 | 11 vs. 48 | 1.220 | 0.407–3.660 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 before amendment vs. MET-HIT 2000 AB 4 | 2 vs. 48 | 6.118 | 1.353–27.663 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 after amendment vs. HIT 2000 BIS 4 | 11 vs. 22 | 1.364 | 0.397–4.689 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 before amendment vs. HIT 2000 BIS 4 | 2 vs. 22 | 6.839 | 1.364–34.278 | |
| MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 b. Amendment vs. MET-HIT 2000 BIS 4 a. Amendment | 2 vs. 11 | 5.015 | 0.894–28.149 | |
| Presence of large cell component | 184 | 0.022 | ||
| Yes vs. no | 7 vs. 177 | 4.267 | 1.511–12.056 | |
| Presence of endothelial proliferation | 184 | 0.035 | ||
| No vs. yes | 59 vs. 125 | 0.448 | 0.199–1.009 | |
| Pattern of synaptophysin expression | 184 | 0.006 | ||
| Speckled yes vs. no | 55 vs. 129 | 2.651 | 1.369–5.136 | |
| Categorized TOP2A copy number | 155 | 0.003 | ||
| >2.7 vs. < 2.7 | 44 vs. 111 | 0.291 | 0.113–0.746 | |
| TOP2A copy-number (continuous) | 155 | 0.673 | 0.452–1.002 | 0.039 |
| 6q status (array-based) | 172 | 0.031 | ||
| Gain vs. bal | 16 vs. 143 | 0.717 | 0.220–2.332 | |
| Loss vs. bal | 13 vs. 143 | NE | – | |
| 6q status (FISH) | 176 | 0.034 | ||
| Gain vs. bal | 19 vs. 141 | 0.381 | 0.092–1.584 | |
| Loss vs. bal | 16 vs. 141 | 0.183 | 0.025–1.337 | |
| Loss vs. gain | 16 vs. 19 | 0.480 | 0.043–5.307 | |
| MYC status (FISH) | 181 | 0.036 | ||
| Amplif vs. bal | 6 vs. 175 | 3.711 | 1.317–10.453 | |
| 450k subgrouping | 175 | 0.007 | ||
| Group_3 vs. Group_4 | 46 vs. 72 | 2.037 | 1.014–4.089 | |
| SHH vs. Group_4 | 42 vs. 72 | 0.895 | 0.382–2.099 | |
| SHH vs. Group_3 | 42 vs. 46 | 0.440 | 0.187–1.032 | |
| WNT vs. Group_4 | 15 vs. 72 | NE | – |
NE not estimable (because there are no events in this group)
* p value of the likelihood ratio test for omnibus test. For pairwise comparisons, confidence intervals instead of p values are given (p value of Wald test ≤0.05 if and only if confidence interval does not contain 1)