Skip to main content

Table 4 ECOG performance status of patients after combined treatment and at the end of the study

From: A new promising way of maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer: a comparative clinical study

Characteristic Arm 1
(n = 46)
Arm 2
(n = 76)
Arm 3
(n = 42)
Arms 2+3
(n = 118)
Arm 4
(n = 40)
Arm 5
(n = 80)
ECOG performance status after combined treatment, No. (%)
 0 35 (76.1) 60 (78.9) 32 (76.2) 92 (77.97) 25 (62.5) 49 (61.25)
 1 7 (15.2) 10 (13.2) 6 (14.3) 16 (13.56) 8 (20.0) 15 (18.75)
 2 3 (6.5) 4 (5.3) 3 (7.1) 7 (5.93) 4 (10.0) 9 (11.25)
 3 1 (2.2) 2 (2.6) 1 (2.4) 3 (2.54) 3 (7.5) 7 (8.75)
p* 0.12 0.0406 0.14 0.0312 0.86  
Alive patients at database cutoff 46 (100) 76 (100) 42 (100) 118 (100) 40 (100) 80 (100)
ECOG performance status at the end of the study, No. (%)
 0 8 (17.4) 15 (19.7) 8 (19.1) 23 (19.49) 2 (5.0) 3 (3.75)
 1 9 (19.5) 17 (22.4) 11 (26.2) 28 (23.73) 4 (10.0) 7 (8.75)
 2 8 (17.4) 10 (13.2) 7 (16.6) 17 (14.41) 3 (7.5) 6 (7.50)
 3 4 (8.7) 4 (5.3) 3 (7.1) 7 (5.93) 4 (10.0) 7 (8.75)
 4 1 (2.2) 2 (2.6) 1 (2.4) 3 (2.54) 3 (7.5) 6 (7.50)
p* 0.0180 0.0013 0.0078 0.0007 0.86  
Death 16 (34.8) 28 (36.8) 12 (28.6) 40 (33.90) 24 (60.0) 51 (63.75)
Alive patients at database сutoff 30 (62.5) 48 (63.2) 30 (71.4) 78 (66.10) 16 (40.0) 29 (36.25)
  1. ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
  2. *Mann-Whitney U-test was applied to determine the differences between arms 1–4 vs arm 5 and arms 2+3 vs arm 5
\