. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.

Published in final edited form as: Mol Imaging Biol. 2016 Jun;18(3):454–462. doi: 10.1007/s11307-015-0900-2

Table 4.

Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis for PFS and OS.

		PFS		OS

Dichotomous		HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value

Age	> 55 vs ≤ 55	0.97 (0.38, 2.45)	0.94	1.45 (0.54, 3.89)	0.11
Site	Eloquent vs Non-eloquent	0.53 (0.15, 1.87)	0.32	0.95 (0.21, 4.25)	0.94
MGMT Promoter	Methylated vs Unmethylated	0.24 (0.09, 0.68)	0.01^*	0.45 (0.16, 1.31)	0.14
EGFR	Amplification vs No Amplification	0.78 (0.30, 2.03)	0.61	0.70 (0.26, 1.91)	0.48
PTEN	Deletion vs Intact	0.85 (0.19, 3.86)	0.84	0.42 (0.12, 1.54)	0.19

Continuous	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Age (yrs)	1.01 (0.97, 1.05)	0.63	1.03 (0.98, 1.07)	0.24
KPS before surgery	0.99 (0.93, 1.04)	0.61	0.93 (0.87, 0.99)	0.04^*
KPS after surgery	0.99 (0.95, 1.04)	0.87	0.95 (0.92, 0.99)	0.01^*
SA (mm²)	1.00 (1.00, 1.00)	0.23	1.00 (1.00,1.00)	0.86
Preoperative Tumor Volume (cm³)	0.99 (0.97, 1.01)	0.12	1.00 (0.98, 1.02)	0.83
NV% (%)	0.10 (0.01, 2.98)	0.18	0.04 (0.01, 1.48)	0.08
SAVR (mm²/cm³)	1.00 (1.00, 1.01)	0.39	1.002 (1.00, 1.01)	0.56
EOR (%)	0.99 (0.93, 1.05)	0.65	0.94 (0.89, 0.99)	0.03^*
RTV (cm³)	0.99 (0.91, 1.08)	0.82	1.09 (1.00, 1.18)	0.06

Significant at p ≤ 0.05.