The effect of tobacco, XPC, ERCC2 and ERCC5 genetic variants in bladder cancer development

BMC Cancer

Table 4 Logistic regression: effect of tobacco and XPC, ERCC2 and ERCC5 polymorphisms on tumors stages

								95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B)
stade ^a		B	Std. Error	Wald	Df	Sig.	Exp(B)	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Pt1	Intercept	-,55	1,80	,09	1	,75
	Sex	,97	,78	1,54	1	,21	2,64	,57	12,20
	Age	-1,16	,47	6,06	1	,01	,31	,12	,78
	[XPC (A/C) = AA]	-,11	,53	,04	1	,82	,89	,31	2,53
	[XPC (A/C) = AC]	,49	,54	,83	1	,36	1,64	,56	4,74
	[XPC (A/C) = CC]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.
	[ERCC2 (A/C) = AA]	,66	,64	1,07	1	,30	1,94	,55	6,84
	[ERCC2 (A/C) = AC]	,24	,65	,13	1	,71	1,27	,35	4,56
	[ERCC2 (A/C) = CC]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.
	[ERCC5 (G/C) = CC]	,64	,65	,99	1	,31	1,91	,53	6,82
	[ERCC5(G/C) = GC]	,25	,41	,36	1	,54	1,28	,57	2,87
	[ERCC5(G/C) = GG]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.
	[PY = 0]	,20	,56	,13	1	,71	1,22	,40	3,72
	[PY = 1-19]	-1,87	,89	4,41	1	,03	,15	,02	,88
	[PY ≥ 20]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.
≥pT2	Intercept	-,62	3,04	,04	1	,83
	Sex	1,27	1,41	,81	1	,36	3,58	,22	57,00
	Age	-1,71	,63	7,22	1	,00	,18	,05	,63
	[XPC(A/C) = AA]	-,42	,59	,51	1	,47	,65	,20	2,10
	[XPC(A/C) = AC]	-,19	,62	,09	1	,75	,82	,24	2,77
	[XPC(A/C) = CC]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.
	[ERCC2(A/C) = AA]	,65	,80	,67	1	,41	1,93	,40	9,29
	[ERCC2(A/C) = AC]	,34	,80	,18	1	,67	1,40	,29	6,81
	[ERCC2(A/C) = CC]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.
	[ERCC5(G/C) = CC]	1,02	,71	2,07	1	,14	2,79	,69	11,33
	[ERCC5(G/C) = GC]	-,16	,50	,10	1	,74	,84	,31	2,29
	[ERCC5(G/C) = GG]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.
	[PY = 0]	-1,21	,88	1,87	1	,17	,29	,05	1,69
	[PY = 1-19]	-2,24	1,16	3,72	1	,05	,10	,01	1,03
	[PY ≥ 20]	0^b	.	.	0	.	.	.	.

This model was obtained after adjustment to sex and age; a: The reference category is Pta tumor group; b: this parameter is set to zero because it is redundant; PY: pack years. Logistic regression: Number of observation = 193, Chi-square: 32.851, p = 0.035, Pseudo R-square = 0.087, Log likelihood = 187,948

ISSN: 1471-2407