Table 4

Results from multiple Cox regression analyses

Variable

Hazard ratio

95% Confidence interval

P


c-erbB1 (clone EGFR.113) staining index

1.076

0.92 to 1.26

0.37

Karnofsky performance status

0.913

0.85 to 0.98

0.008

Gross total resection

0.196

0.05 to 0.79

0.022

Age

0.998

0.95 to 1.05

0.95


c-erbB1 (clone EGFR.25) staining index

0.991

0.80 to 1.23

0.93

Karnofsky performance status

0.912

0.85 to 0.98

0.009

Gross total resection

0.199

0.05 to 0.82

0.026

Age

1.007

0.96 to 1.06

0.79


c-erbB2 (clone CB11) staining index

1.642

1.17 to 2.30

0.004

Karnofsky performance status

0.854

0.78 to 0.94

0.001

Gross total resection

0.324

0.08 to 1.38

0.13

Age

0.973

0.92 to 1.03

0.36


c-erbB2 (clone 5A2) staining index

1.036

0.79 to 1.35

0.80

Karnofsky performance status

0.910

0.85 to 0.98

0.009

Gross total resection

0.186

0.05 to 0.78

0.021

Age

1.005

0.96 to 1.06

0.85


c-erbB2 (clone 3B5) staining index

1.018

0.84 to 1.23

0.86

Karnofsky performance status

0.912

0.85 to 0.98

0.009

Gross total resection

0.190

0.05 to 0.77

0.020

Age

1.006

0.96 to 1.06

0.81


c-erbB3 (clone RTJ1) staining index

0.975

0.83 to 1.15

0.76

Karnofsky performance status

0.914

0.85 to 0.98

0.010

Gross total resection

0.204

0.05 to 0.81

0.024

Age

1.008

0.96 to 1.06

0.74


c-erbB4 (clone HFR-1) staining index

0.902

0.68 to 1.20

0.48

Karnofsky performance status

0.907

0.85 to 0.97

0.005

Gross total resection

0.178

0.05 to 0.72

0.015

Age

1.003

0.96 to 1.05

0.90


EGFR gene amplification

0.689

0.23 to 2.11

0.51

Karnofsky performance status

0.919

0.86 to 0.99

0.021

Gross total resection

0.175

0.04 to 0.73

0.017

Age

1.013

0.96 to 1.07

0.63


Multiple Cox regression analyses were used to study the association between c-erbB1-4 expression and survival, adjusting for age at diagnosis, Karnofsky performance status scores, and extent of surgical resection. The association between EGFR amplification and survival was studied in the same manner.

Gulati et al. Diagnostic Pathology 2010 5:18   doi:10.1186/1746-1596-5-18

Open Data