Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Cox proportional Hazard model analysis of potential prognostic factors influencing Os

From: Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume of pretreatment 18F-FAMT PET/CT in non-small cell lung Cancer

parameters Univariate Analysis Multivariate Analysis
Hazard Ratio (95% CI) p value Hazard Ratio (95% CI) p value
Patient
 age (69 vs < 69) 1.17 (0.69, 1.96) 0.57   
 sex (Male vs Female) 1.44 (0.76, 2.73) 0.26   
Histologic subtype
 adenocarcinoma vs others 0.80 (0.47, 1.37) 0.42   
TNM stage
 T stage (T3/4 vs T1/2) 2.57 (1.49, 4.44) < 0.01   
 N stage (N2/3 vs N0/1) 1.84 (1.03, 3.25) < 0.05   
 M stage (M1 vs M0) 2.20 (1.28, 3.77) < 0.01   
Clinical stage
 III/IV vs I/II 5.92 (2.08, 16.80) < 0.01 5.36 (1.88, 15.34) < 0.01
Treatment
 inoperable vs operable 5.37 (2.31, 12.45) < 0.01   
18F-FDG PET parameters
 SUVmax (9.7 vs < 9.7) 2.24 (1.29, 3.88) < 0.01   
 MTV (cm3) (25.9 vs < 25.9) 1.81 (1.06, 3.08) < 0.05   
 TLG (127.0 vs < 127.0) 2.03 (1.19, 3.48) < 0.05   
18F-FAMT PET parameters
 SUVmax (2.0 vs < 2.0) 2.17 (1.26, 3.74) < 0.01   
 MTV (cm3) (7.0 vs < 7.0) 3.14 (1.79, 5.53) < 0.01 2.88 (1.63, 5.09) < 0.01
 TLR (10.7 vs < 10.7) 2.78 (1.59, 4.87) < 0.01