Table 4.

Multivariable Cox regression analysis for OS, RFS, and EFS

OS HR (95% CI)P valueRFS HR (95% CI)P valueEFS HR (95% CI)P value
Treatment group (ICH vs VenAza) 1.82 (1.03-3.20) .039 3.23 (1.04-10.08) .043 1.72 (0.98-3.04) .061 
Age (per year) 1.02 (1.00-1.03) .061 1.00 (0.97-1.02) .761 1.01 (0.99-1.03) .206 
Secondary AML (vs de novo) 0.80 (0.36-1.78) .584 1.48 (0.26-8.53) .664 1.39 (0.70-2.78) .347 
Risk (adverse vs nonadverse) 1.39 (0.70-2.77) .345 1.43 (0.54-3.79) .474 1.19 (0.64-2.23) .585 
Risk (unknown vs nonadverse) 1.53 (0.87-2.71) .143 1.27 (0.49-3.34) .622 1.77 (1.07-2.91) .025 
OS HR (95% CI)P valueRFS HR (95% CI)P valueEFS HR (95% CI)P value
Treatment group (ICH vs VenAza) 1.82 (1.03-3.20) .039 3.23 (1.04-10.08) .043 1.72 (0.98-3.04) .061 
Age (per year) 1.02 (1.00-1.03) .061 1.00 (0.97-1.02) .761 1.01 (0.99-1.03) .206 
Secondary AML (vs de novo) 0.80 (0.36-1.78) .584 1.48 (0.26-8.53) .664 1.39 (0.70-2.78) .347 
Risk (adverse vs nonadverse) 1.39 (0.70-2.77) .345 1.43 (0.54-3.79) .474 1.19 (0.64-2.23) .585 
Risk (unknown vs nonadverse) 1.53 (0.87-2.71) .143 1.27 (0.49-3.34) .622 1.77 (1.07-2.91) .025 

The treatment group remained independently associated with OS and RFS, while unknown-risk patients showed inferior EFS. Other baseline covariates were not significant. Bold values reflect P <.05.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal