Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Aug 15.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Cancer. 2017 Jun 1;141(4):721–730. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30785

Table 3.

Associations between NUGs and CMSS in patients of the MDACC study and Harvard study

Genotype MDACC Harvard


All Death (%) HR (95% CI)b Pb All Death (%) HR (95% CI)c Pc
NUGa
 0 46 2 (4.3) 1.00 19 0 (0) graphic file with name nihms876070t1.jpg 1.00d
 1 204 10 (4.9) 1.34 (0.29–6.26) 7.07E-01 102 7 (6.9)
 2 358 39 (10.9) 2.84 (0.68–11.85) 1.51E-01 164 17 (10.4) 1.96 (0.81–4.74) 1.34E-01
 3 214 34 (15.9) 5.09 (1.22–21.28) 2.59E-02 104 16 (15.4) 2.96 (1.21–7.20) 1.71E-02
 4 36 10 (27.8) 9.96 (2.17–45.75) 3.12E-03 20 8 (40.0) 10.49 (3.76–29.28) 7.25E-06
Trend test 1.47E-07 3.12E-05
 0–2 608 51 (8.4) 1.00 285 24 (8.4) 1.00
 3–4 250 44 (17.6) 2.62 (1.73–3.96) 5.39E-06 124 24 (19.4) 2.52 (1.43–4.45) 1.43E-03

Abbreviations: NUGs, number of unfavorable genotypes; CMSS, cutaneous melanoma-specific survival; MDACC, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; HR, hazards ratio; CI, confidence interval.

a

Unfavorable genotypes were rs10916352 CC+CG, rs3851552 CC+TC, rs72635537 TT+CT, and rs7826362 TT+AT.

b

Adjusted for age, gender, Breslow thickness, stage, ulceration, and mitotic rate.

c

Adjusted for age and gender.

d

Combined the individuals with NUGs of 0 and 1 as reference.