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.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal