Table 2.

Cox proportional hazards model for EFS and OS

CharacteristicCategoriesEFSOS
UnivariateMultivariateUnivariateMultivariate
HR95% CIP valueHR95% CIP valueHR95% CIP valueHR95% CIP value
Age groups ≥75 vs 65-69 y 1.37 1.07-1.74 .011 1.41 1.10-1.82 .007 1.25 0.96-1.62 .105 1.2 0.91-1.58 .188 
≥75 vs 70-74 y 1.54 1.19-1.98 .001 1.46 1.13-1.89 .004 1.29 0.98-1.70 .066 1.2 0.90-1.58 .207 
Sex Male vs female 0.99 0.81-1.22 .943 0.92 0.75-1.14 .449 1.06 0.85-1.33 .577 0.80-1.26 .973 
Urban/suburban residence Rural vs urban 1.14 0.88-1.47 .317  — — 1.22 0.93-1.60 .158  — — 
Bridging therapy Present vs absent 1.34 1.09-1.64 .005 1.27 1.03-1.56 .028 1.49 1.19-1.86 <.001 1.39 1.11-1.75 .005 
Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 vs 0-4 1.57 1.28-1.94 <.0001 1.56 1.26–1.92 <.0001 1.63 1.30-2.05 <.0001 1.58 1.26-1.99 <.0001 
CharacteristicCategoriesEFSOS
UnivariateMultivariateUnivariateMultivariate
HR95% CIP valueHR95% CIP valueHR95% CIP valueHR95% CIP value
Age groups ≥75 vs 65-69 y 1.37 1.07-1.74 .011 1.41 1.10-1.82 .007 1.25 0.96-1.62 .105 1.2 0.91-1.58 .188 
≥75 vs 70-74 y 1.54 1.19-1.98 .001 1.46 1.13-1.89 .004 1.29 0.98-1.70 .066 1.2 0.90-1.58 .207 
Sex Male vs female 0.99 0.81-1.22 .943 0.92 0.75-1.14 .449 1.06 0.85-1.33 .577 0.80-1.26 .973 
Urban/suburban residence Rural vs urban 1.14 0.88-1.47 .317  — — 1.22 0.93-1.60 .158  — — 
Bridging therapy Present vs absent 1.34 1.09-1.64 .005 1.27 1.03-1.56 .028 1.49 1.19-1.86 <.001 1.39 1.11-1.75 .005 
Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 vs 0-4 1.57 1.28-1.94 <.0001 1.56 1.26–1.92 <.0001 1.63 1.30-2.05 <.0001 1.58 1.26-1.99 <.0001 

—, this variable was not included in the multivariate analysis since it was not prognostic by univariate analysis. HR, hazard ratio.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal