Skip to main content

Table 5 Factors affecting LTP and OS

From: Image-guided microwave ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (≤5.0 cm): is MR guidance more effective than CT guidance?

Parameters

LTP

 

P

OS

95%CI

P

HR

95%CI

HR

Lower Higher

Lower Higher

Univariate Cox regression

 Age (> 60 vs ≤ 60)

0.217

0.836

2.197

1.356

2.825

1.085

7.356

0.033

 AFP (> 200 vs ≤ 200 ng/mL)

0.138

0.887

2.371

1.451

1.496

0.619

3.613

0.371

 Tumor diameter (≥3,< 5 vs < 3 cm)

2.644

1.596

4.380

0.000

2.865

1.100

7.460

0.031

 Tumor location (challenging location vs typical location)

3.399

2.065

5.593

0.000

4.604

1.759

12.050

0.002

 Number of lesion (single vs 2–3 lesions)

3.282

1.995

5.399

0.000

9.109

3.029

27.395

0.000

 Child–Pugh stage (B vs A)

1.180

0.723

1.923

0.508

1.337

0.554

3.228

0.519

 Guidance system (CT vs MR)

0.888

0.547

1.443

0.632

0.808

0.336

1.941

0.633

Multivariate Cox regression

 Age (> 60 vs ≤ 60)

1.006

0.606

1.672

0.980

2.337

0.846

6.454

0.101

 AFP (> 200 vs ≤ 200 ng/mL)

1.312

0.775

2.220

0.312

0.971

0.387

2.434

0.950

 Tumor diameter (≥3,< 5 vs < 3 cm)

2.869

1.621

5.081

0.000

3.388

1.100

10.431

0.033

 Tumor location (challenging location vs typical locations)

2.848

1.621

5.273

0.001

2.646

0.868

8.070

0.087

 Number of lesion (single vs 2–3 lesions)

1.890

1.053

3.391

0.033

9.287

2.649

32.567

0.000

 Child–Pugh stage (B vs A)

1.429

0.816

2.505

0.212

2.393

0.843

6.789

0.111

 Guidance system (CT vs MR)

0.824

0.487

1.393

0.470

0.419

0.143

1.223

0.101

  1. Note—general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA); challenging locations (hepatic dome, close to the heart/diaphragm/hepatic hilum)