Table 3.
Survival of 1999–2002 compared to 1995–1998 stratified by SEER registries.
| SEER registry | Size | OS |
CSS |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value by log-rank test | Hazard ratio 99-02 versus 95–98 (95% CI) | p-value by log-rank test | Hazard ratio 99-02 versus 95–98 (95% CI) | Proportion of non- CSDa (%) | ||
| San Francisco–Oakland SMSA | 303 | 0.03 | 0.72 (0.53, 0.97) | 0.05 | 0.71 (0.50, 1.00) | 22.7 |
| Connecticut | 251 | 0.99 | 1.00 (0.73, 1.37) | 0.33 | 0.84 (0.59, 1.20) | 21.5 |
| Metropolitan Detroit | 374 | <0.01 | 0.62 (0.48, 0.78) | <0.01 | 0.54 (0.41, 0.72) | 15.4 |
| Hawaii | 125 | 0.57 | 1.14 (0.72, 1.81) | 0.89 | 1.03 (0.61, 1.78) | 28 |
| Iowa | 253 | 0.31 | 0.85 (0.61, 1.17) | 0.27 | 0.82 (0.58, 1.17) | 13.9 |
| New Mexico | 166 | 0.89 | 1.03 (0.69, 1.53) | 0.89 | 1.03 (0.67, 1.57) | 11.2 |
| Seattle (Puget Sound) | 264 | 0.32 | 0.85 (0.62, 1.18) | 0.46 | 0.88 (0.63, 1.24) | 15.8 |
| Utah | 125 | 0.11 | 0.68 (0.43, 1.09) | 0.08 | 0.63 (0.38, 1.06) | 13.7 |
| Metropolitan Atlanta | 255 | 0.05 | 0.73 (0.53, 1.00) | 0.03 | 0.69 (0.48, 0.97) | 14.6 |
| Alaska | 7 | 0.81 | 0.75 (0.07, 8.42) | 0.81 | 0.74 (0.07, 8.42) | 0 |
| San Jose–Monterey | 177 | 0.06 | 0.68 (0.45, 1.02) | 0.05 | 0.64 (0.41, 1.00) | 16.3 |
| Los Angeles | 1194 | 0.10 | 0.88 (0.76, 1.02) | 0.36 | 0.92 (0.78, 1.09) | 18.8 |
| Rural Georgia | 23 | <0.01 | 0.06 (0.01, 0.29) | <0.01 | 0.10 (0.02, 0.50) | 31.3 |
a“Non-_CSD” is short for “Non-Cause Specific Death”. The “Non-CSD” patients were treated as censored in the cause specific survival (CSS) analysis.
Red color used to highlight statistically significant p-values.