Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 18;108(3):djv336. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv336

Table 5.

Hazard ratios by prognostic factor using different methods of identifying recurrences*

Prognostic factor Method of recurrence identification
MR: LACE
HR (95% CI)
Algorithm 7 (Chubak)
HR (95% CI)
Algorithm 9 (Chubak)
HR (95% CI)
Triangulation:
Algorithms 7, 9 and 10% MR
HR (95% CI)
Stage
 I Ref Ref Ref Ref
 II 1.69 (1.11 to 2.59) 1.32 (0.83 to 2.10) 1.61 (0.99 to 2.62) 1.56 (0.95 to 2.57)
 IIIa 4.01 (2.10 to 7.67) 4.15 (2.01 to 8.57) 3.77 (1.82 to 7.80) 4.33 (2.09 to 8.96)
Positive nodes
 0 Ref Ref Ref Ref
 1–3 1.40 (0.93 to 2.12) 1.19 (0.74 to 1.93) 1.74 (1.10 to 2.77) 1.60 (0.99 to 2.58)
 4+ 2.85 (1.81 to 4.51) 2.27 (1.32 to 3.89) 3.18 (1.90 to 5.34) 3.08 (1.81 to 5.23)
Alcohol intake
 ≤0.5g/d Ref Ref Ref Ref
 <6g/d 1.03 (0.74 to 1.44) 0.99 (0.65 to 1.37) 1.08 (0.75 to 1.55) 1.01 (0.69 to 1.47)
 ≥6g/d 1.17 (0.84 to 1.64) 1.02 (0.69 to 1.50) 1.12 (0.77 to 1.62) 1.13 (0.77 to 1.64)
Physical activity
 <2.5h/wk Ref Ref Ref Ref
 >2.5h/wk 0.87 (0.64 to 1.16) 0.70 (0.50 to 0.97) 0.91 (0.66 to 1.26) 0.83 (0.60 to 1.16)

* Models adjusted for age and simultaneously for risk factors. LACE = Life After Cancer Epidemiology cohort; MR = medical record; Ref = referent.