Skip to main content

Table 9 Hazard ratios for comparing CCLG and GPOH patients

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

  EFS OS
HR (95% CI) p value HR (95% CI) p value
All patients
 Unadjusted 1.42 (1.13–1.77) 0.002 1.45 (1.14–1.86) 0.003
 Unadjusted HR, in localised disease only 1.47 (1.11–1.96) 0.007 1.52 (1.11–2.07) 0.009
 Adjusted for risk group and trial treatment 1.43 (1.14–1.79) 0.002 1.49 (1.17–1.91) 0.001
Adjusted for each of the following factors separatelya
 Age 1.45 (1.15–1.81) 0.001 1.47 (1.15–1.88) 0.002
 Metastatic disease 1.38 (1.10–1.73) 0.005 1.42 (1.11–1.81) 0.005
 Primary site 1.48 (1.18–1.86) <0.001 1.52 (1.19–1.95) 0.001
 Histology 1.41 (1.12–1.77) 0.004 1.44 (1.12–1.85) 0.004
 Local treatment modalityb 1.45 (1.12–1.89) 0.006 1.30 (0.98–1.72) 0.07
 Adjusted for age, metastatic disease, primary site, histology and local treatmenta 1.44 (1.10–1.89) 0.009 1.30 (0.97–1.74) 0.08
 Adjusted HR, in localised disease only 1.48 (1.05–2.09) 0.026 1.29 (0.88–1.89) 0.19
Only patients who had local therapy; excluding progressive disease (n = 25) and where it was not known whether local therapy was given or not n = 22)
 Unadjusted 1.22 (0.96–1.55) 0.11 1.28 (0.99–1.67) 0.06
 Adjusted for type of local treatmentc 1.14 (0.87–1.51) 0.34 1.25 (0.92–1.68) 0.15
 Adjusted for time between the start of chemotherapy and starting local treatment 1.12 (0.87–1.44) 0.37 1.18 (0.90–1.55) 0.22
 Adjusted for age, metastatic disease, primary site, histology, local treatment, and time between the start of chemotherapy and starting local treatment 1.13 (0.84–1.50) 0.42 1.25 (0.91–1.71) 0.17
  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. EFS event-free survival; OS overall survival
  3. aUsing Cox regression modelling (age as a continuous variable). Missing data for the other variables were included as a separate category, but excluding these from the analyses did not materially change the hazard ratio estimates in the table
  4. bIncludes categories for no local therapy and missing data
  5. cSurgery alone, radiotherapy alone, surgery then radiotherapy, radiotherapy then surgery
Back to article page