Skip to main content

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses of PFS

From: Comparison of full-dose gemcitabine/cisplatin, dose-reduced gemcitabine/cisplatin, and gemcitabine/carboplatin in real-world patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

Parameter

Cutoff

Univariate

Multivariate

HR (95% CI)

P

HR (95% CI)

P

Age (years)

Continuous

1.00 (0.98–1.02) per score

0.98

  

Sex

Male

Reference

0.80

  

Female

0.94 (0.56–1.50)

   

ECOG PS

0

Reference

0.043*

Reference

0.13

 ≥ 1

1.57 (1.00–2.39)

 

1.41 (0.90–2.19)

 

eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)

 < 60

Reference

0.15

  

 ≥ 60

1.36 (0.89–2.06)

   

Primary site

Bladder

Reference

0.52

  

Upper urinary tract

0.84 (0.54–1.31)

   

Both

1.18 (0.63–2.08)

   

Resection of primary site

No

Reference

0.018*

Reference

0.047*

Yes

0.61 (0.41–0.92)

 

0.66 (0.43–0.99)

 

Prior neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy

No

Reference

0.66

  

Yes

1.15 (0.58–2.08)

   

Lymph node metastasis

No

Reference

0.31

  

Yes

1.24 (0.82–1.92)

   

Lung metastasis

No

Reference

0.68

  

Yes

1.09 (0.71–1.64)

   

Bone metastasis

No

Reference

0.48

  

Yes

0.80 (0.41–1.42)

   

Liver metastasis

No

Reference

0.22

  

Yes

1.45 (0.77–2.51)

   

First-line regimen

Full-dose GC

Reference

0.80

  

Dose-reduced GC

0.95 (0.56–1.57)

   

GCa

0.85 (0.53–1.36)

   
  1. CI confidence interval, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, GC gemcitabine/cisplatin, GCa gemcitabine/carboplatin, HR hazard ratio, PFS progression-free survival
  2. *Statistically significant