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