Table 3.
Items | logistic regression analysis | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
P value | OR | 95% CI | ||
| ||||
Lower | Higher | |||
Univariate logistic regression | ||||
Therapy | ||||
Apatinib | Ref | |||
Apatinib plus cTACE | 0.105 | 4.500 | 0.730 | 27.739 |
Apatinib plus DEB-TACE | 0.036 | 8.250 | 1.154 | 59.003 |
Age (>60 years vs. ≤60 years) | 0.600 | 1.481 | 0.341 | 6.425 |
Gender (male vs. female) | 0.556 | 0.625 | 0.131 | 2.984 |
Wight (>60 kg vs. ≤60 kg) | 0.633 | 0.705 | 0.168 | 2.955 |
HBV (positive vs. negative) | 0.600 | 1.481 | 0.341 | 6.425 |
ECOG score (2 vs. 1) | 0.028 | 0.167 | 0.034 | 0.826 |
Child-Pugh stage (B vs. A) | 0.232 | 2.500 | 0.556 | 11.250 |
Number of intrahepatic tumors (>3 vs. ≤3) | 0.130 | 0.263 | 0.047 | 1.481 |
Macroscopic vascular invasion (yes vs. no) | 0.263 | 2.700 | 0.474 | 15.396 |
Tumor size (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm) | 0.494 | 0.540 | 0.092 | 3.159 |
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no) | 0.999 | 0.000 | 0.000 | - |
Distant metastasis (yes vs. no) | 0.263 | 0.370 | 0.065 | 2.112 |
TNM stage (IV vs. III) | 0.417 | 0.525 | 0.111 | 2.487 |
CA199£ (abnormal vs. normal) | 0.766 | 0.800 | 0.184 | 3.487 |
Bile duct dilatation (yes vs. no) | 0.215 | 2.667 | 0.566 | 12.557 |
Biliary drainage (yes vs. no) | 0.657 | 1.500 | 0.251 | 8.977 |
Previous therapy (yes vs. no) | 0.671 | 0.721 | 0.159 | 3.266 |
Forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression | ||||
Therapy | ||||
Apatinib | Ref | |||
Apatinib plus cTACE | 0.098 | 5.861 | 0.720 | 47.713 |
Apatinib plus DEB-TACE | 0.027 | 14.963 | 1.371 | 163.356 |
ECOG score (2 vs. 1) | 0.023 | 0.100 | 0.014 | 0.729 |
ORR, objective response; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ref, reference; cTACE, conventional transarterial chemoembolization; DEB-TACE, drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization; HBV, hepatitis B virus; ECOG, Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group; CA199, carbohydrate antigen 199.
normal: CA199 level ≤27.0 U/mL, abnormal: CA199 level >27.0 U/mL.