Skip to main content
. 2016 Apr;8(4):727–737. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.03.22

Table 8. Differences between the IASLC/ITMIG TNM staging proposal categories.

HR vs. adjacent TNM staging category CIR, R0 (67/1,060)*
OS, R0 (23/1,085)*
OS, any R (39/1,198)*
HR P HR P HR P
II vs. I 0.159 0.000 0.544 0.558 1.497 0.696
IIIa vs. I 5.235 0.000 2.926 0.028 2.207 0.080
IIIb vs. I 16.665 0.000
IVa vs. I 8.806 0.000
IVb vs. I 17.847 0.000
IIIa vs. II 1.022 0.963 1.461 0.726 1.469 0.720
IIIb vs. II 11.282 0.030
IVa vs. II 5.787 0.109
IVb vs. II 12.108 0.024
IIIb vs. IIIa 8.088 0.001
IVa vs. IIIa 4.209 0.015
IVb vs. IIIa 8.616 0.000
IVa vs. IIIb 0.515 0.323
IVb vs. IIIb 0.920 0.901
IVb vs. IVa 1.872 0.322

Hazard ratios and statistical differences (χ2) by Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted by diagnosis. *, number of events/total number of patients in entire data set for the particular analysis. IASLC, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer; ITMIG, the International Thymic Malignancies Interest Group; CIR, cumulative incidence of recurrence; OS, overall survival; R0, complete resection; HR, hazard ratio.