Table 3.
Cox proportional Hazard model analysis of potential prognostic factors influencing Os
| parameters | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | p value | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | p value | |
| Patient | ||||
| age (69 vs < 69) | 1.17 (0.69, 1.96) | 0.57 | ||
| sex (Male vs Female) | 1.44 (0.76, 2.73) | 0.26 | ||
| Histologic subtype | ||||
| adenocarcinoma vs others | 0.80 (0.47, 1.37) | 0.42 | ||
| TNM stage | ||||
| T stage (T3/4 vs T1/2) | 2.57 (1.49, 4.44) | < 0.01 | ||
| N stage (N2/3 vs N0/1) | 1.84 (1.03, 3.25) | < 0.05 | ||
| M stage (M1 vs M0) | 2.20 (1.28, 3.77) | < 0.01 | ||
| Clinical stage | ||||
| III/IV vs I/II | 5.92 (2.08, 16.80) | < 0.01 | 5.36 (1.88, 15.34) | < 0.01 |
| Treatment | ||||
| inoperable vs operable | 5.37 (2.31, 12.45) | < 0.01 | ||
| 18F-FDG PET parameters | ||||
| SUVmax (9.7 vs < 9.7) | 2.24 (1.29, 3.88) | < 0.01 | ||
| MTV (cm3) (25.9 vs < 25.9) | 1.81 (1.06, 3.08) | < 0.05 | ||
| TLG (127.0 vs < 127.0) | 2.03 (1.19, 3.48) | < 0.05 | ||
| 18F-FAMT PET parameters | ||||
| SUVmax (2.0 vs < 2.0) | 2.17 (1.26, 3.74) | < 0.01 | ||
| MTV (cm3) (7.0 vs < 7.0) | 3.14 (1.79, 5.53) | < 0.01 | 2.88 (1.63, 5.09) | < 0.01 |
| TLR (10.7 vs < 10.7) | 2.78 (1.59, 4.87) | < 0.01 | ||