Skip to main content

Table 2 Univariate analyses of prognostic factors for PFS in the intent-to-treat population

From: Phase II study of R–CVP followed by rituximab maintenance therapy for patients with advanced marginal zone lymphoma: consortium for improving survival of lymphoma (CISL) study

Variable N/n PFS
HR 95% CI P value
Gender (male vs. female) 32/13 0.025 0.000–6.051 0.187
Age (< 60 years vs. ≥ 60 years) 29/16 2.663 0.743–9.540 0.132
ECOG performance status (0–1 vs. 2–3) 43/2 4.756 0.582–38.870 0.146
Ann Arbor stage (III vs. IV) 11/34 31.820 0.072–13993.516 0.265
Elevated LDH (no vs. yes) 38/7 6.819 1.885–24.667 0.003
BM involvement (absent vs. present) 34/11 3.313 0.862–12.736 0.081
B symptomsa (present vs. absent) 7/38 0.130 0.034–0.500 0.003
IPI score (1 vs. 2–4) 13/32 4.951 0.622–39.401 0.131
Extranodal MZL (present vs. absent) 30/15 0.570 0.157–2.062 0.391
R–CVP response (CR vs. < CR) 20/25 0.388 0.097–1.544 0.179
  1. BM bone marrow, CR complete response, CI confidence interval, ECOG Eastern Clinical Oncology Group, HR hazard ratio, IPI International Prognostic Index, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, MZL marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, PFS progression-free survival, R–CVP rituximab cyclophosphamide vincristine prednisolone
  2. aFever, night sweats, and/or weight loss