Table 3.

Prognostic significance of stage analyzed in MVA in UKCCLG, AIEOP and JWiTS studies (>100 patients).

Authors	Ref.	Cooperative Group	Study	n	Outcome	Comparison	Hazard Ratio	p-Value
T. Koshinaga et al. 2018	[4]	JWiTS	JWiTS-2	178	EFS	I–III vs. IV 1	Significant (Log-rank)	<0.01
F. Spreafico et al. 2017	[5]	AIEOP	TW2003	453	EFS	I vs. II	1.13 (0.56–2.29)	n.s.
						I vs. III	0.96 (0.40–2.30)
						I vs. IV	1.90 (0.82–4.42)
S. Irtan et al. 2015	[25]	UKCCLG	UKW3	635	Local RFS	I vs. II I vs. III I vs. IV	n.s. in UVA	n.s.
					Distant RFS	I vs. II I vs. III I vs. IV	0.99 (0.46–2.12) 1.46 (0.80–2.27) 2.35 (1.27–4.33) In UVA	n.s. in MVA
M. Haruta et al. 2019	[33]	JWiTS	1987–2015	128	EFS	I–III vs. IV 1	0.86 (0.79–0.93) vs. 0.54 (0.25–0.82)	0.006
B. Messahel et al. 2009	[46]	UKCCLG	UKW1-3	452	RFS	I–II vs. III–IV 2	1.35 (0.78–2.31)	0.28
H. Segers et al. 2013	[47]	SIOP/UKCCLG	SIOP2001, UKW2-3 3	272	EFS	I vs. II	1.23 (0.49–3.12)	0.66
						I vs. III	2.29 (1.01–5.21)	0.05
						I vs. IV	3.63 (1.62–8.13)	0.002

¹ Univariable analysis only. ² Stage I patients comprised 66% of stage I/II population, and stage III patients comprised 65% of stage III/IV population. ³ Unadjusted for treatment approach (immediate surgery (UKW2 and half of UKW3) or pre-operative chemotherapy (half of UKW3 and SIOP 2001)). Abbreviations: EFS, event-free survival; MVA, multivariable analysis; n, number of patients; n.s., not significant; Ref., reference; RFS, relapse-free survival; UVA, univariable analysis.