Skip to main content

Table 3 Proportional hazards model to identify independent predictors of survival and to compare hepatocellular carcinoma patient data in this study to the data of patients in the original SNACOR study [7]

From: Validation of the SNACOR clinical scoring system after transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

  SNACOR parameters Hazard ratio (95% CI) P-value
This study Tumour size ≥5 cm vs. < 5 cm 2.51 (1.88–3.36) < 0.001
Tumour number ≥4 vs. < 4 1.28 (0.93–1.75) 0.127
Baseline AFP level ≥400 ng/ml vs. < 400 ng/ml 1.76 (1.28–2.43) < 0.001
Child-Pugh class A vs. B 1.56 (1.16–2.12) 0.004
Objective radiological response CR + PR vs. SD + PD 0.97 (0.73–1.28) 0.821
Original SNACOR study Tumour size ≥5 cm vs. < 5 cm 1.29 (0.95–0.17) 0.100
Tumour number ≥4 vs. < 4 1.68 (1.24–2.28) 0.001
Baseline AFP level ≥400 ng/ml vs. < 400 ng/ml 2.09 (1.55–2.82) < 0.001
Child-Pugh class A vs. B 1.44 (0.96–2.14) 0.074
Objective radiological response CR + PR vs. SD + PD 2.24 (1.65–3.03) < 0.001