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
Back to article page