Skip to main content

Table 5 Hazard ratios (CCLG vs. GPOH) according to primary site and localised disease

From: Survival is influenced by approaches to local treatment of Ewing sarcoma within an international randomised controlled trial: analysis of EICESS-92

 

No. events

Unadjusted

Adjusted for age, metastatic disease, histology and local treatment

Hazard ratio 95% CI

p value

Hazard ratio 95% CI

p value

Central axis

 All (n = 320)

  EFS

177

1.48 (1.08–2.03)

0.02

1.27 (0.89–1.82)

0.19

  OS

154

1.47 (1.05–2.06)

0.03

1.20 (0.82–1.75)

0.36

 Localised (n = 220)

  EFS

102

1.47 (0.97–2.24)

0.07

1.33 (0.82–2.16)

0.24

  OS

87

1.46 (0.93–2.30)

0.10

1.15 (0.69–1.92)

0.58

Extremity

 All (n = 312)

  EFS

140

1.56 (1.12–2.18)

0.009

1.75 (1.18–2.60)

0.005

  OS

112

1.69 (1.17–2.45)

0.006

1.59 (1.02–2.46)

0.04

 Localised (n = 253)

  EFS

99

1.68 (1.13–2.50)

0.01

1.56 (1.00–2.43)

0.05

  OS

75

1.86 (1.18–2.93)

0.007

1.68 (1.00–2.81)

0.05

Pelvic disease

 All (n = 168)

  EFS

100

1.36 (0.90–2.05)

0.14

1.05 (0.65–1.70)

0.84

  OS

90

1.32 (0.85–2.04)

0.21

0.98 (0.60–1.62)

0.94

 Localised (n = 107)

  EFS

56

1.22 (0.69–2.15)

0.51

0.98 (0.51–1.89)

0.96

  OS

51

1.17 (0.64–2.14)

0.61

1.01 (0.51–2.03)

0.97

  1. Hazard ratios greater than 1 indicate that CCLG patients had a higher risk of having an event or dying compared to GPOH patients
  2. Hazard ratios for localised disease were not adjusted for metastatic disease
  3. EFS event-free survival; OS overall survival