Skip to main content
. 2015 Dec 11;48(3):928–941. doi: 10.4143/crt.2015.275

Table 6.

Prognostic factor analyses using Cox’s regression method with backward selection for progression-free survival and overall survival

Variable Progression-free survival
Overall survival
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
HR (95% Cl) p-value HR (95% Cl) p-value HR (95% Cl) p-value HR (95% Cl) p-value
Age (< 50 yr vs. ≥ 50 yr) 0.67 (0.33-1.37) 0.28 - - 0.44 (0.17-1.18) 0.1 - -
Sex (female vs. male) 0.91 (0.42-1.98) 0.81 - - 1.46 (0.56-3.76) 0.44 - -
ECOG performance (0 vs. 1) 0.34 (0.15-0.74) 0.007 0.4 (0.16-1.02) 0.06 0.32 (0.12-0.89) 0.03 - -
WHO classification (NK vs. others) 1.04 (0.25-4.36) 0.96 - - 0.62 (1.4-2.69) 0.52 - -
T stage (Tl-2 vs. T3-4) 1.77 (0.85-3.69) 0.13 - - 0.27 (0.09-0.84) 0.02 0.29 (0.09-0.9) 0.03
N stage (NO vs. Nl-3) 2.32 (0.31-17.1) 0.41 - - 1.01 (0.13-7.77) 0.99 - -
TNM staging (III vs. IVa-b) 0.32 (0.15-0.65) 0.002 0.36 (0.16-0.8) 0.01 0.33 (0.13-0.85) 0.02 - -
Radiotherapy modality (IMRT vs. 3D-CRT) 0.68 (0.32-1.44) 0.31 - - 0.37 (0.15-0.94) 0.04 0.36 (0.14-0.92) 0.03
EQD2 (α/β ratio=10) (≥ 70 Gy vs.< 70 Gy) 0.68 (0.33-1.41) 0.3 - - 0.46 (0.18-1.15) 0.1 - -
Chemotherapy (concurrent vs. induction vs. none) Reference 0.23 Reference 0.01 Reference 0.28 - -
0.88 (0.26-2.98) 0.18 (0.04-0.82) 1.05 (0.23-4.72) -
0.45 (0.12-1.69) 0.08 (0.02-0.41) 0.42 (0.08-2.34) -
TLG (low vs. high) 0.3 (0.15-0.61) 0.001 0.3 (0.14-0.65) 0.002 0.27 (0.1-0.69) 0.006 0.29 (0.11-0.79) 0.02
Whole tumor volume (continuous) (mL) 1.01 (1.003-1.02) 0.005 - - 1.01 (1-1.02) 0.16 - -

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; WHO, World Health Organization; TNM, tumor-node-metastasis; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; 3D-CRT, 3-Dimensional conformal radiation therapy; EQD2, equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions; TLG, total lesion glycolysis for whole tumor.