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)
\