Table 3 Comparison of prognostic power of T cell proximity score and T cell density score using Cox regression models for cancer-specific survival.

	No. of cases	No. of events	Model 1 (univariable) HR (95% CI)	Model 2 (multivariable) HR (95% CI)	Model 3 (multivariable) HR (95% CI)
T cell proximity score
Low	194	88	1 (referent)	1 (referent)	1 (referent)
Intermediate	545	157	0.57 (0.44–0.75)	0.52 (0.38–0.73)	0.75 (0.54–1.04)
High	244	25	0.18 (0.12–0.29)	0.15 (0.08–0.27)	0.32 (0.17–0.60)
P_trend			<0.0001	<0.0001	0.001
T cell density score
Low	163	64	1 (referent)	1 (referent)	1 (referent)
Intermediate	596	172	0.69 (0.52–0.93)	1.15 (0.81–1.65)	0.91 (0.64–1.30)
High	224	34	0.34 (0.22–0.51)	1.33 (0.75–2.34)	1.01 (0.56–1.81)
P_trend			<0.0001	0.35	0.75

Model 2: Cox proportional hazards regression model including T cell proximity score and T cell density score.
Model 3: Cox proportional hazards regression model based on Model 2 that was additionally adjusted for sex, age (<65, 65–75, >75), year of operation (2000–2005, 2006–2010, 2011–2015), tumour location (proximal colon, distal colon, rectum), disease stage (I–II, III, IV), tumour grade (well/moderately differentiated, poorly differentiated), lymphovascular invasion (negative, positive), MMR status (proficient, deficient), BRAF status (wild-type, mutant).
P_trend values were calculated by using the three ordinal categories of T cell proximity score and T cell density score as continuous variables in univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models.
CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio.

Quick links

Search