Table 4

Cox regression analysis (unadjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals): associations with disease-specific survivala

All tumorsb95% confidence intervalStage I and IIA only95% confidence intervalStage I and IIA, small tumors only95% confidence interval
Unadjusted hazard ratioUnadjusted hazard ratioUnadjusted hazard ratio
KLF4 (type 1 versus type 2–4)1.7(0.94–3.22) 2.8 (1.23–6.58) 4.3 (1.75–10.62)
Lymph nodes positive versus negative 3.2 (1.65–6.22) 2.1(0.81–5.37)1.4(0.50–3.70)
Stagec 5.5 (2.88–10.64) 0.7(0.29–1.52)1.2(0.49–3.06)
Histological grade (high versus low) 2.8 (1.53–5.24) 1.9(0.84–4.37) 3.3 (1.32–8.28)
Race (African American versus Caucasian) 2.3 (1.29–4.12) 2.0(0.85–4.77) 2.6 (1.03–6.45)
Age (≤50 yrs versus >50 yrs)1.3(0.72–2.25)1.1(0.49–2.57)1.4(0.54–3.50)
BCL2 (> versus ≤ median immunoscore) 0.4 (0.23–0.83) 0.6(0.24–1.34)0.5(0.19–1.18)
Ki67 (> versus ≤ median immunoscore)1.3(0.69–2.45)0.9(0.39–2.19)1.5(0.60–3.89)
p27KIP1 (> versus ≤ median immunoscore)0.6(0.31–1.12)0.5(0.20–1.16)0.4(0.15–1.00)
Estrogen receptor (positive versus negative)0.8(0.43–1.35)1.4(0.57–3.40)0.7(0.26–2.01)
Progesterone receptor (positive versus negative)0.6(0.32–1.07)1.1(0.47–2.43)0.8(0.31–1.89)
  • a Hazard ratios were considered to be statistically significant when the 95% confidence interval did not include 1.00. Statistically significant associations are highlighted in bold.

  • b The number of patients in each group is indicated in the corresponding panel of Fig. 2<$REFLINK> .

  • c For all tumors, the comparison was stage > I versus stage I. For stage I and IIA only, the comparison was stage IIA (T1N1M0 and T2N0M0) versus stage I. For stage I and IIA, small tumors only, the comparison was stage IIA (T1N1M0) versus stage I.