Table 3.

Univariate Cox regression model estimates

VariableComparisonsOSPFS
HR (CI 95%)Wald P valueHR (CI 95%)Wald P value
Cohort BBB vs ibrutinib 2.46 (1.24-4.90) .010 2.29 (1.21-4.36) .011 
Additional IT chemotherapy No vs yes 0.86 (0.44-1.68) .653 0.93 (0.49-1.77) .832 
Age at CNS relapse 3rd vs 1st quartile 1.05 (0.68-1.61) .836 1.11 (0.73-1.68) .631 
Sex Female vs male 0.84 (0.41-1.73) .629 0.88 (0.44-1.76) .720 
Morphology variant Blastoid vs classic 2.38 (1.14-4.98) .005 2.47 (1.18-5.20) .010 
 Pleomorphic vs classic 4.85 (1.61-14.57)  3.77 (1.32-10.79)  
MIPI Intermediate vs low 0.47 (0.16-1.41) .401 0.43 (0.14-1.32) .273 
 High vs low 0.69 (0.27-1.71)  0.79 (0.32-1.95)  
CNS involvement pattern Both vs leptomeningeal 1.31 (0.61-2.82) .602 1.25 (0.59-2.64) .844 
 Parenchyma vs leptomeningeal 0.77 (0.29-2.11)  1.13 (0.47-2.73)  
Extra CNS involvement No vs yes 1.15 (0.53-2.47) .730 1.45 (0.69-3.06) .326 
CNS POD ≤24 mo Yes vs no 2.37 (1.18-4.77) .015 2.31 (1.20-4.44) .012 
VariableComparisonsOSPFS
HR (CI 95%)Wald P valueHR (CI 95%)Wald P value
Cohort BBB vs ibrutinib 2.46 (1.24-4.90) .010 2.29 (1.21-4.36) .011 
Additional IT chemotherapy No vs yes 0.86 (0.44-1.68) .653 0.93 (0.49-1.77) .832 
Age at CNS relapse 3rd vs 1st quartile 1.05 (0.68-1.61) .836 1.11 (0.73-1.68) .631 
Sex Female vs male 0.84 (0.41-1.73) .629 0.88 (0.44-1.76) .720 
Morphology variant Blastoid vs classic 2.38 (1.14-4.98) .005 2.47 (1.18-5.20) .010 
 Pleomorphic vs classic 4.85 (1.61-14.57)  3.77 (1.32-10.79)  
MIPI Intermediate vs low 0.47 (0.16-1.41) .401 0.43 (0.14-1.32) .273 
 High vs low 0.69 (0.27-1.71)  0.79 (0.32-1.95)  
CNS involvement pattern Both vs leptomeningeal 1.31 (0.61-2.82) .602 1.25 (0.59-2.64) .844 
 Parenchyma vs leptomeningeal 0.77 (0.29-2.11)  1.13 (0.47-2.73)  
Extra CNS involvement No vs yes 1.15 (0.53-2.47) .730 1.45 (0.69-3.06) .326 
CNS POD ≤24 mo Yes vs no 2.37 (1.18-4.77) .015 2.31 (1.20-4.44) .012 
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal