A.) Overall EPZ015938 manufacturer survival according to VM positive and VM negative (p = 0.014). B.) Overall survival according to high MVD (MVD≥17.53) and low MVD (MVD?17.53) (p = 0.772). 17.53 was the average MVD of 203 cases of LSCC patients. C.) Disease-free survival according to VM positive and VM negative (p = 0.011). D.) Disease-free survival according to high MVD and low MVD (p = 0.847). Table 2 Univariate analyses of factors associated with recurrence, metastasis and survival Variable Overall Survival Disease-Free Survival χ2 P χ2 P Sex, male vs female 1.809 0.179 0.690 0.496 Age, y, ≥60 vs
<60 0.075 0.784 0.342 0.559 Tobacco, Yes vs No 2.371 0.124 2.661 0.103 Drink, Yes vs No 0.013 0.911 0.648 0.421 Location, Super Apoptosis inhibitor glottic vs glottic vs subglottic 0.585 0.746 6.035 0.049 pTNM stage, Ivs II vs III vs IV 11.600 0.009 4.592 0.204 T
classification, T1 vs T2 vs T3 vs T4 10.744 0.013 6.915 0.075 Nodal status, N-positive vs N-negative 6.238 0.013 0.583 0.445 Distant Metastasis, Yes vs No 0.042 0.837 0.374 0.541 Recurrence, Yes vs No 12.386 <0.0001 0.043 Selleck TH-302 0.836 Histopathological grade, 1 vs 2 vs 3 6.529 0.038 1.274 0.529 Tumor size, cm, ≥3 vs <3 4.809 0.028 10.364 0.001 Surgery modality (cervical neck dissection) Yes vs No 0.672 0.412 1.122 0.290 Radiotherapy, Yes vs No 26.752 <0.0001 27.750 <0.0001 MVD, <17.53 vs ≥17.53 0.084 0.772 0.037 0.847 VM, Yes vs No 6.054 0.014 6.535 0.011 VM: vasculogenic mimicry; MVD: micro vessel density. Table 3 Multivariate analyses of factors associated with recurrence, metastasis and survival Variable Hazard Ratio 95% Confidence Intervals p lower upper Overall Survival VM, Positive vs Negative -2.117 1.286 3.425 0.003 Recurrence, Yes vs No -1.821 1.363 3.639 0.020 TNM stage, Ivs IIvs IIIvs IV 1.367 1.080 1.732 0.009 Radiotherapy, Yes vs No 2.872 1.764 4.678 <0.0001 Disease-free Survival VM, Positive vs Negative -1.733 only 1.202 2.498 0.003 Radiotherapy, Yes vs No 2.756 1.893 4.012 <0.0001 VM: vasculogenic mimicry;
MVD: micro vessel density. In addition, univariate analysis of DFS showed that VM (P = 0.011) (Fig. 2C), location (P = 0.049), tumor size (P = 10.364) and radiotherapy (P <0.0001) were proposed to correlate with DFS. While, gender, age at diagnosis, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, pTNM stage, T classification, nodal status, distant metastasis, recurrence, histopathological grade and MVD (Fig. 2D) (all P > 0.05; Table 2) showed no correlation with DFS. Multivariate analysis showed that VM (RR = -1.733, P = 0.003) and radiotherapy (RR = 2.756, P < 0.0001) were independent prognostic factors for DFS (Table 3). Relationship between VM and EDV To elucidate on the relationship between VM and EDV, the MVD between the VM-positive group and VM-negative group was compared. This determined patients of VM-negative group had a higher MVD (18.3403 ± 6.92318) than the VM-positive group (14.8643 ± 5.18685) (t = 3.096, p = 0.
No related posts.