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.