Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 25;8(11):5137–5147. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2284

Table 4.

Results of three prognostic models derived by Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis

Model Baseline variables Interim variables n Three‐year PFS, N (%) P‐Valuea
Model 1 TLG0 ≤ 1036.6 TLG1 ≥ 14.068 32 31 (96.90) 0.157
TLG1 > 14.068 5 4 (80.00)  
Total 37 35 (94.60)  
TLG0 > 1036.6 TLG1 ≤ 14.068 30 22 (73.30) 0.000
TLG1 > 14.068 18 5 (27.80)  
Total 48 27 (56.30)  
Model 2 TLG0 ≤ 1036.6 ΔSUVmax ≥ 86.02% 15 14 (93.3) 0.547
ΔSUVmax < 86.02% 22 21 (95.5)  
Total 37 35 (94.6)  
TLG0 > 1036.6 ΔSUVmax ≥ 86.02% 20 18 (90.0) 0.000
ΔSUVmax < 86.02% 28 9 (32.1)  
Total 48 27 (56.5)  
Model 3 NCCN‐IPI ≤ 3 ΔSUVmax ≥ 86.02% 23 22 (95.70) 0.198
ΔSUVmax < 86.02% 26 21 (80.80)  
Total 49 43 (87.80)  
NCCN‐IPI > 3 ΔSUVmax ≥ 86.02% 12 10 (83.30) 0.009
ΔSUVmax < 86.02% 24 9 (37.50)  
Total 36 19 (52.80)  
Total   Total 85 62 (72.90)  

NCCN‐IPI, National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index; PFS, progression‐free survival; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; TLG, total lesion glycolysis (subscripts 0 and 1 represent baseline and interim measures, respectively).

a

Log‐rank test.