Table 3 Multivariate analysis of different models for DFS.
From: FDG-PET predicts bone invasion and prognosis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma
Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis of DFS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Risk factors | Hazard ratio | 95% CI | p value |
Model 1 | |||
Primary tumor SUVmax (> 7.2 vs. ≤ 7.2) | 1.779 | 1.1216–2.8221 | 0.014 |
Extranodal spread (Yes vs. No) | 2.704 | 1.5020–4.8668 | 0.001 |
Perineural invasion (Yes vs. No) | 1.110 | 0.7368–1.6720 | 0.618 |
Lymphovascular invasion (Yes vs. No) | 0.882 | 0.5390–1.4446 | 0.619 |
Positive margin involved (Yes vs. No) | 1.000 | 0.9408–1.0636 | 0.993 |
Model 2 | |||
Pathological T stage (T3 + T4 vs. T1 + T2) | 1.444 | 0.9731–2.1426 | 0.068 |
Extranodal spread (Yes vs. No) | 2.559 | 1.4336–4.5685 | 0.002 |
Perineural invasion (Yes vs. No) | 1.153 | 0.7697–1.7261 | 0.491 |
Lymphovascular invasion (Yes vs. No) | 0.852 | 0.5219–1.3919 | 0.523 |
Positive margin involved (Yes vs. No) | 0.658 | 0.2369–1.8285 | 0.422 |
Model 3 | |||
Bone invasion (Yes vs. No) | 1.797 | 1.2245–2.6360 | 0.003 |
Extranodal spread (Yes vs. No) | 2.790 | 1.5633–4.9786 | 0.001 |
Perineural invasion (Yes vs. No) | 1.169 | 0.7883–1.7344 | 0.437 |
Lymphovascular invasion (Yes vs. No) | 0.784 | 0.4793–1.2810 | 0.331 |
Positive margin involved (Yes vs. No) | 0.598 | 0.2141–1.6675 | 0.325 |
Model 4 | |||
Depth of tumor invasion (> 15 mm vs. ≤ 15 mm) | 2.211 | 1.4480–3.3757 | 0.0002 |
Extranodal spread (Yes vs. No) | 2.376 | 1.3291–4.2459 | 0.004 |
Perineural invasion (Yes vs. No) | 1.164 | 0.7768–1.7434 | 0.462 |
Lymphovascular invasion (Yes vs. No) | 0.796 | 0.4833–1.3113 | 0.370 |
Positive margin involved (Yes vs. No) | 0.822 | 0.2948–2.2901 | 0.707 |
