Comparison of Inflammation-Based Prognostic Scores in a Cohort of Patients with Resectable Esophageal Cancer
Table 5
Results of simple and multiple Cox regression models for disease-free survival. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and values (p) and proportions of explained variation (PEV). Full model PEV = 23.4%.
Variables
Simple HR (95%, CI)
value
PEV
Multiple HR (95%, CI)
value
PEV
Alb < 35
1.08 (0.67–1.75)
0.75
0.0
0.96 (0.57–1.61)
0.878
<0.1
CRP > 1
1.44 (0.98–2.12)
0.066
0.9
1.10 (0.72–1.70)
0.648
<0.1
N1
2.04 (1.33–3.13)
0.001
15.0
1.01 (0.56–1.82)
0.981
3.9
N2
2.29 (1.50–2.50)
<0.001
2.58 (1.63–4.10)
<0.001
Nres
0.97 (0.83–1.15)
0.741
0.0
0.78 (0.65–0.93)
0.005
1.9
nEAC
1.95 (1.28–2.97)
0.002
4.2
0.95 (0.56–1.59)
0.836
1.6
nESCC
0.92 (0.52–1.62)
0.767
0.87 (0.47–1.62)
0.668
1.6
One-stage surgery
0.67 (0.42–1.07)
0.094
0.9
0.97 (0.58–1.61)
0.906
0.0
UICC
<0.001
15.4
0.002
3.5
I versus 0
0.66 (0.30–1.44)
0.293
0.86 (0.37–1.99)
0.718
II versus 0
2.08 (1.02–4.26)
0.045
2.27 (1.04–4.95)
0.04
III + IV versus 0
3.54 (1.76–7.10)
<0.001
3.43 (1.42–8.33)
0.006
N1 and N2 together also in “simple” model. HR for log2-transformed variables quantify the effect of a doubling of the respective variable. Neoadjuvant therapy and EAC and ESCC exhibit a significant interaction () in the model containing only these two variables but not in the multivariable model (). Thus, the neoadjuvant therapy effect is given separately for EAC and ESCC.
