Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 18.
Published in final edited form as: Hum Mol Genet. 2018 May 15;27(10):1809–1818. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddy094

Table 3. Association between IgM anti-PC and CLL in the nested case–control study.

n Raw value (U/ml) Normalized value
All 120    40.72 (25.33−83.45)    0.00 ± 0.99
t-test
CLL cases 30    29.35 (18.68−69.73)    -0.38 ± 1.11
Matched controls 90    42.30 (30.32−87.06)    0.13 ± 0.92
P    0.015
CLL prevalent cases 7    22.29 (9.29−29.53)    -1.12 ± 1.10
Matched controls 21    46.20 (38.04−74.36)    0.12 ± 0.90
P    0.006
CLL incident cases 23    31.73 (18.86−88.51)    -0.15 ± 1.04
Matched controls 69    41.74 (27.67−91.26)    0.13 ± 0.93
P    0.227
CLL incident cases (>5 years)a 11    29.77 (18.86−144.23)    -0.18 ± 1.09
Matched controls 33    38.72 (27.67−69.25)    0.05 ± 0.84
P    0.471
Stratified Cox proportional hazards model
(CLL incident cases
and matched controls)
Hazard ratio (95% CI) 92    1.00 (0.99−1.01)    0.75 (0.40-1.39)
P    0.421    0.354

Nested case–control study includes three age- and sex-matched controls for each CLL case. The distribution of raw IgM anti-PC value is skewed, so median (interquartile range, the 25th percentile–75th percentile) is used to describe the distribution. Mean6SD is used to describe the distribution of rank order normalized values of IgM anti-PC. Follow-up time is the years between dates of blood sampling and first CLL diagnosis.

a

Only cases with more than 5 years between sampling and diagnosis are included.