Skip to main content

Table 4 Multivariate analyses of the prognostic implication of altered PG expression for the different clinical outcomes 1 Estimated regression coefficient and confidence interval;

From: Proteoglycan-based diversification of disease outcome in head and neck cancer patients identifies NG2/CSPG4 and syndecan-2 as unique relapse and overall survival predicting factors

Prognostic indicator/PG Estimate1(95% CI) SE2 p value 3 HR4 Clinical outcome
T classification      
T25 0.359 (0.153/0.565) 0.105 0,012 1.432 Loco-regional relapse
T3 1.857 (1.556/2.158) 0.153   6.404  
T4 2.160 (1.956/2.364) 0.104   8.671  
T3-T4 vs T1-T2 1.850 (1.691/2.009) 0.081 0.001 6.360 Loco-regional relapse
NG2/CSPG4 mRNA6      
De novo expression vs no expression 1.911 (1.735/2.087) 0.090 0.017 6.760 Loco-regional relapse
Precancerous lesions      
Presence vs Absence 1.328 (1.184/1.471) 0.073 0.005 3.773 Lymphnodal metastases
SDC2 stroma      
Positive vs Negative 2.035 (1.885/2.184) 0.076 0.007 7.652 Lymphnodal metastases
SDC2 stroma      
Positive vs Negative 2.160 (2.022/2.298) 0.070 0.003 8.671 Disease-related deaths
N classification      
Positive vs Negative 1.477 (1.326/1.628) 0.077 0.012 4.380 Distant metastasis
N classification      
Positive vs Negative 1.089 (0.967/1.211) 0.062 0.005 2.971 Disease-related deaths
N classification      
Positive vs Negative 1.164 (1.003/1.325) 0.082 <0.001 3.203 Any of the clinical outcomes7
SDC1 mRNA      
↓ /= vs −1.460 (−1.612/-1.309) 0.077 0.013 0.232 Distant metastasis
SDC1 mRNA      
↓ /= vs −0.845 (−1.007/-0.684) 0.082 0.012 0.429 Any of the clinical outcomes
SDC1 mRNA up-regulation + NG2/CSPG4 mRNA de novo expression + SDC2 stroma      
Single condition vs combination of all 3 conditions8 −1.924 (−2.088/-1.760) 0.084 0.002 0.146 Distant metastasis
−1.302 (−1.459/-1.146) 0.080 0.004 0.272 Disease-related deaths
−1.014 (−1.194/-0.833) 0.092 0.003 0.363 Any of the clinical outcomes
  1. 1Estimated regression coefficient and confidence interval;
  2. 2Standard error of estimated regression coefficient;
  3. 3p value <0,05 were considered to be significant;
  4. 4Hazard Ratio estimated from Cox proportional hazard regression model;
  5. 5Compared to T1 stage;
  6. 6PG transcript expression (↓, down-regulated; ↑, up-regulated; =, not changed; De novo expression, de novo expressed in comparison to a healthy mucosal tissues pool that was used as sample calibrator) could be grouped according to the trend of each PG gene in relation to the clinical outcomes;
  7. 7Is referred to a patient that had at least one of the other outcomes within the follow-up;
  8. 8Refers to the comparison between a situation in which all three indicated conditions were manifested (“combination of all 3 conditions”) versus either condition alone or the combination of any two conditions;
  9. Abbreviations: CI, Confidence Interval; HR, Hazard Ratio; SE, standard error.