Less micrometastatic risk related to circulating tumor cells after endoscopic breast cancer surgery compared to open surgery

Table 4 The association between surgery type and micrometastatic risk: multi-variate analysis

Variable	Model 0 ^a		Model 1 ^b		Model 2 ^c
	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value
Surgery type	2.39 (0.93, 6.13)	0.070	2.60 (0.99, 6.80)	0.052	3.19 (1.05, 9.65)	0.040
Menopausal status	0.64 (0.25, 1.65)	0.355	2.16 (0.79, 5.87)	0.131	0.15 (0.02, 1.12)	0.064
Age	1.07 (0.68, 1.67)	0.769	0.18 (0.03, 1.21)	0.077	2.23 (0.79, 6.28)	0.130
Pre-surgery CTC status	0.37 (0.10, 1.35)	0.131	–	–	6.31 (0.10, 418.40)	0.389
Tumor size	1.15 (0.46, 2.87)	0.761	–	–	–	–
Lymph node	1.42 (0.86, 2.33)	0.173	–	–	–	–
Tumor stage	1.41 (0.78, 2.55)	0.261	–	–	–	–
Histology type	- ^e	0.999	–	–	–
ER	1.84 (0.72, 4.73)	0.205	–	–	–	–
PR	1.33 (0.54, 3.28)	0.529	–	–	–	–
HER-2	0.91 (0.61, 1.38)	0.669	–	–	–	–
Interaction ^d	–	–	–	–	0.15 (0.01, 2.56)	0.191
Final model	–	–	–	0.057	–	0.025

OR indicates odds ratio
^aUni-variate logistic analysis
^bAnalyzed variables included: surgery type, menopausal status, age, tumor size, lymph node, tumor stage, histology type, estrogen receptors status, progesterone receptors status and HER-2 status. Analyzed by binary logistic regression (backward likelihood method). Only the variables remained in the final model were listed in the table
^cAdditionally included pre-surgery CTC status and its interaction with surgery type based on model 1. Surgery type, pre-surgery CTC status and their interaction were enforcedly remained in the model
^dThe interaction of surgery type and pre-surgery CTC status
^eThe range was too large to be appropriately represented

ISSN: 1471-2407