Skip to main content

Table 2 The relationship between the SIS group and clinicopathological characteristics

From: The pretherapeutic systemic inflammation score is a prognostic predictor for elderly patients with oesophageal cancer: a case control study

Variables

SIS (n, n%)

p value

 

SIS = 0

SIS = 1

SIS = 2

All cases

166

79

71

16

 

Age(years)

  ≤ 70

72 (43.4%)

41 (51.9%)

26 (36.6%)

5 (31.2%)

0.100

  > 70

94 (56.6%)

38 (48.1%)

45 (63.4%)

11 (68.8%)

Gender

 Male

117 (70.5%)

52 (65.8%)

51 (71.8%)

14 (87.5%)

0.175

 Female

49 (29.5%)

27 (34.2%)

20 (28.2%)

2 (12.5%)

Karnofsky performance status

  < 80

13 (7.8%)

3 (3.8%)

8 (11.3%)

2 (12.5%)

0.164

  ≥ 80

153 (92.2%)

76 (96.2%)

63 (88.7%)

14 (87.5%)

Body mass index(kg/m2)

  < 18.5

21 (15.9%)

9 (13.4%)

10 (20.0%)

2 (13.3%)

0.611

  ≥ 18.5

111 (84.1%)

58 (86.6%)

40 (80.0%)

13 (86.7%)

Smoking status

 No

77 (46.4%)

36 (45.6%)

34 (47.9%)

7 (43.8%)

0.937

 Yes

89 (53.6%)

43 (54.4%)

37 (52.1%)

9 (56.2%)

Family history of cancer

 No

140 (84.3%)

70 (88.6%)

54 (76.1%)

16 (100%)

0.007

 Yes

26 (15.7%)

9 (11.4%)

17 (23.9%)

0 (0%)

Charlson Comorbidity Index

 Mean ± SD

0.60 ± 0.81

0.56 ± 0.71

0.66 ± 0.93

0.56 ± 0.73

0.716

Tumour location

 Cervical and upper thoracic

66 (39.8%)

37 (46.8%)

26 (36.6%)

3 (18.8%)

0.087

 Middle and low thoracic

100 (60.2%)

42 (53.2%)

45 (63.4%)

13 (81.2%)

T stage

 T1-2

29 (18.8%)

18(23.7%)

9(14.3%)

2 (13.3%)

0.311

 T3-4

125 (81.2%)

58(76.3%)

54(85.7%)

13 (86.7%)

M stage

 M0

101 (66.3%)

50(63.3%)

54(76.1%)

6 (37.5%)

0.010

 M1

65 (33.7%)

29(36.7%)

17(23.9%)

10 (62.5%)

Tumour TNM stage

 I + II

34 (21.4%)

20 (25.6%)

14 (21.5%)

0 (0%)

0.014

 III + IV

125 (78.6%)

58 (74.4%)

51 (78.5%)

16 (100%)

Tumour early response

 CR + PR

118 (71.1%)

59 (74.7%)

49 (69.0%)

10 (62.5%)

0.548

 SD + PD

48 (28.9%)

20 (25.3%)

22 (31.0%)

6 (37.5%)

Chemotherapy regimen

 None

63 (38.0%)

27 (34.2%)

27 (38.0%)

9 (56.2%)

0.570

 Single agent

44 (26.5%)

21 (26.6%)

20 (28.2%)

3 (18.8%)

 Two agents

59 (35.5%)

31 (39.2%)

24 (33.8%)

4 (25.0%)

  1. The P value in bold indicated that statistically significant