Table 2.
Results of the Cox analyses
| 2A) Unadjusted comparison: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Covariate | HR | Lower 0.95 | Upper 0.95 | p-value |
|
| ||||
| Group: | <0.001 | |||
| • LND vs. No LND | 0.60 | 0.47 | 0.76 | |
|
| ||||
| 2B) Matched analysis (N=84): | ||||
|
| ||||
| Group: | 0.628 | |||
| • LND vs. No LND | 0.91 | 0.60 | 1.36 | |
|
| ||||
| 2C) Propensity score-adjusted comparison (ATT approach): | ||||
|
| ||||
| Group: | 0.628 | |||
| • LND vs. No LND | 0.78 | 0.52 | 1.16 | |
|
| ||||
| 2D) Doubly-robust procedure (ATT approach): | ||||
|
| ||||
| Group: | 0.479 | |||
| • LND vs. No LND | 0.86 | 0.56 | 1.31 | |
|
| ||||
| Age: | 0.634 | |||
| • 70 vs. 57 | 0.93 | 0.71 | 1.24 | |
|
| ||||
| ECOG-PS: | 0.268 | |||
| • 1 vs. 0 | 1.08 | 0.68 | 1.73 | |
| • ≥2 vs. 0 | 1.82 | 0.76 | 4.38 | |
|
| ||||
| Clinical T stage: | 0.483 | |||
| • T3–4 vs. T1–2 | 1.16 | 0.76 | 1.76 | |
|
| ||||
| Nodal extent: | 0.083 | |||
| • RP vs. Pelvic | 1.47 | 0.95 | 2.26 | |
|
| ||||
| Prior local treatment: | 0.849 | |||
| • Yes vs. No | 1.06 | 0.56 | 2.03 | |
|
| ||||
| Prior PO-CT: | 0.881 | |||
| • Yes vs. No | 1.07 | 0.434 | 2.64 | |
|
| ||||
| CT regimen: | 0.433 | |||
| • CBDCA vs. CDDP | 1.26 | 0.70 | 2.28 | |
|
| ||||
| Best response to CT: | 0.080 | |||
| • PR vs. CR | 1.39 | 0.79 | 2.42 | |
| • SD vs. CR | 1.94 | 0.92 | 4.09 | |
| • PD vs. CR | 2.92 | 1.16 | 7.37 | |
Abbreviations: ATT: average treatment effect among the treated; CBDCA: carboplatin; CDDP: cisplatin; CR: complete response; CT: chemotherapy; ECOG-PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; HR: hazard ratio; LND: lymphadenectomy; PD: progressive disease; PO: perioperative; PR: partial response; RP: retroperitoneal; SD: stable disease.