Skip to main content
. 2016 Jan 28;16:44. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2081-z

Table 1.

Patient characteristics of both cohorts, and of EBUS and Non-EBUS patients within the Post-EBUS cohort

Patient characteristics Both cohorts Post-EBUS cohort (n = 326)
Pre-EBUS cohort (n = 234) Post-EBUS cohort (n = 326) EBUS group (n = 90) Non-EBUS group (n = 236)
Median (IQR) Median (IQR) Median (IQR) Median (IQR)
Age at diagnosis (years)a 69 (15) 69 (17) 67 (15) 70 (18)
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Male 139 (59.4) 200 (61.3) 58 (64.4) 142 (60.2)
Smoker
 Unknown 18 (7.7) 32 (9.8) 8 (8.9) 24 (10.2)
 Current 77 (32.9) 92 (28.2) 29 (32.2) 63 (26.7)
 Ceased 124 (53.0) 180 (55.2) 49 (54.4) 131 (55.5)
 Never 15 (6.4) 22 (6.7) 4 (4.4) 18 (7.6)
Remoteness
 Major city 184 (79.3) 244 (74.8) 65 (72.2) 179 (75.8)
 Inner regional 17 (7.3) 29 (8.9) 10 (11.1) 19 (8.1)
 Outer regional 22 (9.5) 34 (10.4) 11 (12.2) 23 (9.7)
 Remote 9 (3.9) 19 (5.8) 4 (4.4) 15 (6.4)
ECOG-PSb
 0 87 (37.2) 91 (27.9) 25 (28.0) 66 (27.8)
 1 78 (33.3) 143 (43.9) 50 (55.6) 93 (39.5)
 2 43 (18.4) 58 (17.8) 13 (14.4) 45 (19.1)
 3 20 (8.5) 28 (8.6) 2 (2.2) 26 (11.0)
 4 6 (2.6) 6 (1.8) 0 (0.0) 6 (2.0)
Tumour type
 NSCLC 204 (87.2) 288 (88.3) 80 (88.9) 208 (88.1)
 SCLC 30 (12.8) 38 (11.7) 10 (11.0) 28 (11.9)

aMann–Whitney U test; all others except bare Pearson’s chi squared

bNo significant differences between groups except for ECOG-PS (EBUS group compared with Non-EBUS group, Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.009)