Skip to main content
. 2015 Aug 24;33(32):3817–3825. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.5997

Table 4.

Pooled and Meta-Analysis for PFS

Parameter Pooled Analysis (n = 530)
Meta-Analysis (random effect; n = 342)
Univariable
Multivariable
Univariable
Multivariable
Median (months; 95% CI) P* t P Median (months; 95% CI) P z P§
Total studies 3.0 (2.8 to 3.2) 3.0 (2.9 to 3.1)
Personalized strategy < .001 8.7 < .001 < .001 11.1 < .001
    Yes 6.8 (5.3 to 7.6) 5.9 (5.4 to 6.3)
    No 2.8 (2.7 to 3.0) 2.7 (2.6 to 2.9)
Chemotherapy status < .001 5.6 < .001 < .001 5.3 < .001
    Chemotherapy naïve 3.0 (2.6 to 4.5) 4.7 (4.1 to 5.2)
    Prior chemotherapy 2.8 (2.7 to 3.0) 2.8 (2.7 to 2.9)
Tumor type < .001 7.4 < .001 < .001 5.6 < .001
    Solid 2.9 (2.7 to 3.0) 2.9 (2.8 to 3.0)
    Hematologic 5.4 (4.0 to 9.0) 5.9 (4.7 to 7.0)
Agent class .281 .012 4.9 < .001
    Cytotoxic 3.3 (3.0 to 3.7) 3.3 (3.0 to 3.5)
    Targeted 2.9 (2.7 to 3.0) 2.9 (2.9 to 3.0)
Study design .250 .114
    Randomized 2.8 (2.6 to 3.1) 3.0 (2.7 to 3.3)
    Nonrandomized 3.0 (2.8 to 3.4) 3.0 (2.9 to 3.1)
5-Year impact factor .001 0.4 .662 < .001 4.4 < .001
    ≤ 10 2.9 (2.7 to 3.0) 2.8 (2.7 to 2.9)
    > 10 3.8 (3.3 to 4.6) 4.1 (3.7 to 4.4)
No. of patients per arm .021 1.0 .334 < .001 2.0 .041
    ≤ 35 2.8 (2.5 to 3.0) 2.7 (2.6 to 2.8)
    > 35 3.3 (2.9 to 3.6) 3.2 (3.1 to 3.4)
Administration route < .001 0.1 .908 < .001 3.9 < .001
    Oral 3.5 (3.0 to 3.8) 3.2 (3.1 to 3.4)
    Injection 2.8 (2.6 to 3.0) 2.8 (2.6 to 2.9)
FDA/EMA approval < .001 2.2 .030 < .001 2.0 .050
    No 2.7 (2.1 to 2.9) 2.6 (2.4 to 2.7)
    Yes 3.1 (2.9 to 3.5) 3.2 (3.1 to 3.4)
No. of treating centers .357 .353
    Single center 2.9 (2.5 to 3.4) 2.9 (2.6 to 3.1)
    Multiple centers 3.0 (2.8 to 3.3) 3.1 (2.9 to 3.2)

NOTE. Only variables that were significant in the univariable models were included in the multivariable analysis. The t and z values are used to compute the corresponding P values, and the higher they are, the more they contribute to the model. The pooled analysis included 530 arms, and the meta-analysis included 342 arms for which median PFS and the corresponding 95% CI values were available.

Abbreviations: EMA, European Medicines Agency; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; PFS, progression-free survival.

*

Wilcoxon test; the median in the univariable was not weighted.

Multiple linear regression model using a weighted least squares model.

Mixed effects analysis.

§

Random effects meta-regression model.

Cutoff value chosen to discriminate higher impact factor journals versus lower impact factor journals (sum of median and interquartile range).

Cutoff value used was the median of distribution.