Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 22.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Radiol. 2019 Feb 8;113:101–109. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.02.006

Table 1.

Univariate Cox Regression Analysis for OS, PFS and EFS

OS PFS EFS
Parameters* HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
Num. of liver mets 2.71 (1.44–5.12) 0.0021** 2.61 (1.18–5.79) 0.018 2.42 (1.32–4.42) 0.0042
MTV 2.62 (1.38–4.98) 0.0034** 1.96 (0.87–4.41) 0.11 2.29 (1.23–4.24) 0.0086
TLG 2.62 (1.38–4.98) 0.0034** 1.96 (0.87–4.41) 0.11 2.29 (1.23–4.24) 0.0086
SUVpeak 2.05 (1.09–3.86) 0.027 1.93 (0.86–4.33) 0.11 1.64 (0.90–2.99) 0.10
SUVmean 1.81 (0.96–3.41) 0.068 0.82 (0.37–1.80) 0.62 1.35 (0.74–2.44) 0.33
SUVmax 1.48 (0.79–2.77) 0.22 0.83 (0.38–1.82) 0.64 1.16 (0.64–2.09) 0.63
*

Median thresholds for MTV, TLG, SUVpeak, SUVmean and SUVmax were 9.3mL, 58.3mL, 6.8, 5.3 and 7.8, respectively, arriving at 26 patients in each of the lower and higher risk groups. Number of liver mets was set to =1 vs. >1 arriving at 31 vs. 21 patients in the lower and higher risk groups.

**

p-values significant after correction for multiple testing (to control for FDR).