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) |