Table 2.
Univariable (A) and multivariable (B) Cox regression analysis of all patients.
| Table 2A | Univariable analysis | Univariable analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watchful waiting time | Time until RECIST-defined PD | |||
| HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P | |
| “W&W criteria”, < 2 IMDC and ≤ 2 organ sites vs. ≥ 2 IMDC and/or ≥ 2 organ sites | 1.9 (1.0–3.9) | 0.07a | 1.3 (0.7–2.5) | 0.48 |
| IMDC criteria, per unit increase in score | 1.4 (0.9–2.2) | 0.1a | 1.3 (0.9–2.0) | 0.21 |
| Number of organ sites, per involved site increase | 1.4 (1.0–1.9) | 0.087 | 1.0 (0.7–1.5) | 0.86 |
| [89Zr]Zr-DFO-girentuximab above-median split | 1.7 (0.9–3.3) | 0.14 | 1.3 (0.7–2.6) | 0.43 |
| [89Zr]Zr-DFO-girentuximab SUVmax, per 10 units increase in geometric mean | 1.3 (1.0–1.7) | 0.085 | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) | 0.3 |
| [18F]FDG above-median split | 5.6 (2.4–14.7) | <0.001 | 2.1 (1.0–4.4) | 0.046 |
| [18F]FDG SUVmax, per 3 units increase in geometric mean | 1.9 (1.4–2.6) | <0.001 | 1.4 (1.0–1.8) | 0.026 |
| [18F]FDG MTV above median split | 2.2 (1.1–4.5) | 0.03 | 2.5 (1.2–5.2) | 0.013 |
| [18F]FDG MTV, per 50 units increase | 1.3 (1.0–1.6) | 0.007 | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) | 0.17 |
| [18F]FDG TLG above median split | 2.5 (1.2–5.2) | 0.011 | 1.52 (0.8–3.1) | 0.23 |
| [18F]FDG TLG, per 200 units increase | 1.5 (1.1–2.0) | 0.006 | 1.3 (1.0–1.7) | 0.077 |
| Table 2B | Multivariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watchful waiting time | Time until RECIST-defined PD | |||
| HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P | |
| IMDC criteria, per unit increase in score | 1.3 (0.81–2.00) | 0.29 | 1.3 (0.85–2.01) | 0.22 |
| Number of organ sites, per involved site increase | 0.9 (0.49–1.46) | 0.55 | 0.7 (0.40–1.23) | 0.22 |
| [89Zr]Zr-DFO-girentuximab SUVmax, per 10 units increase in geometric mean | 1.2 (0.84–1.78) | 0.28 | 1.3 (0.87–1.82) | 0.21 |
| [18F]FDG SUVmax, per 3 units increase in geometric mean | 1.9 (1.34–2.58) | <0.001 | 1.4 (1.04–1.80) | 0.025 |
Note: Continuous PET variables were truncated at the top 90% to reduce the influence of outliers, and were represented in the analyses in such a way that the resulting HRs correspond to an amount of increase in the respective variable corresponding with approximately one-fourth of its entire distribution. This was done to make the resulting HRs for the continuous PET variables comparable with each other. All HRs are based on Firth penalized regression.
aThe reported P value is two sided, according to Wald.