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