Table 2.

Cox regression analysis of membranous ectodomain EGFR and clinical variables

FactorUnivariate analysisaMultivariate analysisa,b
PHR95% CIPHR95% CI
All patients
Locoregional control
 Ectodomain EGFR only0.0392.61.1–6.30.17
 Tumor volumec0.0074.01.5–11.10.0074.01.5–11.1
 FIGO staged0.42
PFS
 Ectodomain EGFR only0.0012.51.4–4.20.0491.81.0–3.4
 Tumor volumec0.00013.21.8–5.70.0042.51.3–4.5
 FIGO staged<0.00013.32.0–5.50.0012.61.5–4.6
DSS
 Ectodomain EGFR only0.0162.11.2–3.90.066
 Tumor volumec0.00023.41.8–6.70.0022.91.5—5.7
 FIGO staged<0.00013.31.9–5.80.0022.61.4—4.8
Lymph node–negative patients
Locoregional control
 Ectodomain EGFR only0.0028.02.1–30.00.0048.01.9–31.2
 Tumor volumec0.0554.10.97–17.10.082
 FIGO staged0.80
PFS
 Ectodomain EGFR only0.00024.11.9–8.80.0044.11.5–10.6
 Tumor volumec0.0093.01.3–6.90.0502.41.0–5.5
 FIGO staged0.0023.31.6–6.80.0172.91.2–7.0
DSS
 Ectodomain EGFR only0.0083.21.4–7.80.141
 Tumor volumec0.0273.01.1–7.90.0273.01.1–7.9
 FIGO staged0.013.01.3–7.00.156

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FIGO, Federation International de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique.

  • aP values and 95% CIs are listed.

  • bOnly variables with a P < 0.1 in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.

  • cTumor size was divided into 2 groups on the basis of the median volume of 43.2 (all patients) and 36.9 (lymph node–negative patients).

  • dFIGO stage was divided into 2 groups: 1b–2b and 3a–4a.