Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Subgroup analysis of CSS and OS by quality of the study, publication year, patient sample, number or type of intervention, and tumor size

From: Comparison of survival benefits of nephron-sparing intervention or active surveillance for patients with localized renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Subgroup/co-variant Coefficient s.e. P value HR (95%CI); P value
CSS
 Quality − 0.227 0.1580 0.195  
 Publication year 0.598 0.2929 0.096  
   ≤ 2015     0.44 (0.31–0.64); < 0.001
   > 2015     0.76 (0.65–0.89); 0.03
Patient sample −0.688 0.2539 0.030  
  Cancer registry or single center     0.78 (0.63–0.96); 0.02
  Population based     0.39 (0.26–0.60); < 0.001
 Type of intervention −0.014 0.2628 0.958  
  PN     0.67 (0.49–0.90); 0.008
  TA     0.68 (0.52–0.89); 0.005
 Tumor size −0.567 0.2342 0.046  
  T1a     0.68 (0.56–0.82); < 0.001
  Not only T1a     0.70 (0.36–1.38); 0.31
OS
 Quality −0.446 0.1986 0.066  
 Publication year 0.560 0.3845 0.196  
   ≤ 2015     0.39 (0.33–0.46); < 0.001
   > 2015     0.93 (0.65–1.34); 0.70
 Patient sample −0.658 0.4973 0.234  
  Cancer registry or single center     0.68 (0.53–0.88); 0.004
  Population based     0.36 (0.30–0.44); < 0.001
 Intervention 0.625 0.2489 0.049  
  PN     0.40 (0.34–0.47); < 0.001
  TA     1.05 (0.62–1.80); 0.85
 Tumor size −0.681 0.3091 0.070  
  T1a     0.43 (0.36–0.51); < 0.001
  Not only T1a     0.58 (0.42–0.82); 0.002
  1. CI confidence interval, CSS cancer-specific survival, OS overall survival, PN partial nephrectomy, TA thermal ablation