Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 13;10(48):4973–4986. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.27132

Table 5. Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for biochemical relapse after prostatectomy for established risk factors and nuclear ELAC2 expression in the ERG negative and positive subset.

Model Scenario 1 Scenario 4
ERG subset Positive Negative Positive Negative
Variable Category (N) 3 291 4 033 3 301 4 141
Gleason grade biopsy ≥4+4 vs. 4+3 vs. 3+4 vs. ≤3+3 5.05 (4.08–6.23)*** 3.51 (2.94–4.19)***
cT stage T2c vs. T1c 2.23 (1.62–3.00)*** 2.03 1.36–2.91)**
Preoperative PSA level ≥20 vs. 11–20 vs. 4–10 vs.<4 4.22 (3.11–5.77)*** 3.17 (2.39–4.25)*** 1.87 (1.38–2.55)*** 1.70 (1.29–2.28)**
Nuclear ELAC2 expression Strong vs. mod. vs. weak vs. neg. 1.42 (1.13–1.79)* 1.67 (1.33–2.08)*** 1.18 (0.94–1.48) 1.43 (1.14–1.77)*
Gleason grade prostatectomy ≥4+4 vs. 4+3 vs. 3+4 vs. ≤3+3 7.56 (5.27–10.9)*** 4.84 (3.57–6.58)***
pT stage T4 vs. T3 vs. T2 3.03 (2.45–3.73)*** 2.66 (2.21–3.20)***
Surgical margin status R1 vs. R0 1.49 (1.28–1.72)*** 1.21 (1.05–1.39)***
Nodal stage N+ vs. N0 1.29 (1.04–1.60)* 1.49 (1.21–1.82)**

* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.001, *** p ≤ 0.0001.