. 2015 Feb 20;150(1):209–217. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3303-9

Table 2.

Comparison of clinicopathological parameters and types of adjuvant therapy

Variables	Revised SUVmax ≤ 6.0 (n = 233)	Revised SUVmax > 6.0 (n = 29)	Odds ratio (95 % CI)	p
Age	58.6 ± 12.8	54.9 ± 11.8		0.1347
Clinical T stage
T1	180	7	10.67 (4.32–26.36)	<0.0001
T2, T3	53	22	10.67 (4.32–26.36)	<0.0001
Clinical N stage
N0	184	19	1.98 (0.86–4.52)	0.1616
N1, N2, N3	49	10	1.98 (0.86–4.52)	0.1616
Nuclear grade
I, II	154	12	2.76 (1.26–6.09)	0.0092
III	79	17	2.76 (1.26–6.09)	0.0092
Lymph node metastasis
Negative	164	16	1.93 (0.88–4.23)	0.0957
Positive	69	13	1.93 (0.88–4.23)	0.0957
Vascular invasion
Negative	176	18	1.89 (0.84–4.23)	0.1187
Positive	57	11	1.89 (0.84–4.23)	0.1187

Variables	Revised SUVmax ≤ 6.0 (n = 228)	Revised SUVmax > 6.0 (n = 29)	Odds ratio (95 % CI)	p
Adjuvant therapy
Hormonal therapy
Yes	212	28	0.47 (0.06–3.71)	0.7400
No	16	1	0.47 (0.06–3.71)	0.7400
Chemotherapy
Yes	81	15	0.51 (0.24–1.12)	0.0894
No	147	14	0.51 (0.24–1.12)	0.0894
Radiation therapy
Yes	154	14	2.23 (1.02–4.86)	0.0399
No	74	15	2.23 (1.02–4.86)	0.0399

The clinicopathological parameters and types of adjuvant therapy of the revised SUVmax ≤ 6.0 and SUVmax > 6.0 groups were compared by assessing the odds ratios and statistical significance. T stage and nuclear grade were significantly associated with SUVmax (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0092, respectively, Table 2). Radiation therapy was significantly associated with SUVmax (p = 0.0399, Table 2)