Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Mar;16(3):267–273. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.7048

Table 2.

Results of Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Modeling

Covariate AIC w/Covariates AIC Changed HR (95% CI) P-value
Univariable Models
Distress Thermometera 97.38 −9.56 1.28 (1.11, 1.47) <.001
Age at Diagnosisa 106.70 −0.24 1.04 (0.99, 1.09) 0.135
Risk Stratification at Diagnosisb 96.24 −10.70 6.92 (2.30, 20.79) <.001
Charlson Scorea 107.34 0.40 1.18 (0.93, 1.48) 0.206
Ever Use of Therapyc 104.48 −2.46 3.99 (0.89, 17.87) 0.035
Ever Reported Fatiguec 108.27 1.33 1.58 (0.51, 4.91) 0.414
Frequency of Fatiguea 107.46 0.52 0.89 (0.73, 1.09) 0.224
Final Model
Distress Thermometera 93.53 -13.41 1.18 (1.01, 1.36) 0.030
Risk Stratification at Diagnosisb 4.02 (1.26, 12.83) 0.016

AIC=Akaike information criteria. HR=hazard ratio. CI=confidence interval

a

Single point increase.

b

High vs. Intermediate/Low.

c

Yes vs. No.

d

AIC change is calculated from the AIC of the model without covariates, 106.94.