(47.five ) 21 (52.5 ) 16 (40.0 ) 24 (60.0 ) 29 (72.5 ) 11 (27.5 ) 6 (15.0 ) 34 (85.0 ) 26 (65.0 ) 14 (35.0 ) 38 (95.0 ) two (five.0 ) 0.7 0.3.two 25 1122 24 750 0.7 0.four.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.196 (77.8 ) 56 (22.2 ) 145 (57.5 ) 107 (42.5 ) 175 (69.four ) 77 (30.six ) 219 (86.9 ) 33 (13.1 ) 26 (10.3 ) 226 (89.7 ) 183 (72.six ) 69 (27.4 ) 148 (58.7 ) 104 (41.3 ) 0.7 0.25.9 24 1166 24 764 0.7 0.two.170 (80.2 ) 42 (19.eight ) 126 (59.four ) 86 (40.six ) 159 (75.0 ) 53 (25.0 ) 190 (89.six ) 22 (ten.4 ) 20 (9.4 ) 192 (90.six ) 157 (74.1 ) 55 (25.9 ) 110 (51.9 ) 102 (48.1 ) 0.7 0.25.9 24 11.0066.00 25 864 0.7 0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2014 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley Sons Ltd.P. Xue et al.NLR for Predicting Palliative Chemotherapyregression models were utilised to identify prognostic things for TTF and OS. Prognostic components shown to be substantial within the univariate analysis were tested via multivariate evaluation. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95 self-confidence interval (CI) had been calculated employing Cox regression models. A two-tailed P worth of 0.05 was considered statistically considerable. All statistical analyses were performed utilizing SPSS statistical software (version 17.Evinacumab 0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).ResultsPatient characteristicsPatient traits were stratified by the pretreatment NLR values (5 or 5) and are summarized in Table 1. A total of 212 sufferers had a pretreatment NLR of five, whilst 40 had an NLR of 5. Most baseline characteristics had been comparable amongst the two groups. However, theTable 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis of poor prognostic factors for TTF. Median TTF (95 CI) (months) Univariate evaluation Hazard ratio Multivariate evaluation Hazard ration95 CIP-value95 CIP-valueAge (years) 65 148 7.7 65 104 8.0 Gender Female 119 6.six Male 133 8.0 ECOG PS 0 242 7.four 2 10 2.two Distant metastasis No 68 9.0 Yes 184 six.9 Key tumor place Head 146 six.7 Physique and tail 106 9.3 The status of initially unresectable/recurrent Recurrent 73 11.9 Initially unresectable 179 6.3 NLR 5 212 8.7 5 40 three.1 PLR 150 104 9.6 150 148 six.3 CA19-9 (U/mL) 1000 196 8.8 1000 56 4.0 CEA (ng/mL) five 145 9.four 5 107 6.Quetiapine hemifumarate 2 CRP (mg/dL) 0.PMID:24818938 five 175 eight.eight 0.5 77 4.4 LDH (IU/L) 250 33 three.3 250 219 7.9 Hemoglobin (g/dL) 10 226 7.5 ten 26 five.1 Albumin (g/dL) three.five 183 7.9 three.five 69 five.(6.0.4) (six.five.5) (five.0.two) (six.4.six) (6.1.7) (0.0.4) (6.61.four) (five.8.0) (five.7.7) (7.11.5) (7.26.6) (4.9.7) (7.20.two) (two.7.five) (six.82.four) (4.9.7) (7.20.four) (two.2.eight) (7.31.five) (four.9.five) (six.90.7) (2.eight.0) (2.0.six) (six.four.four) (6.two.eight) (3.4.8) (6.3.5) (2.four.8)1 0.97 1 1.04 1 1.95 1 1.77 1 0.97 1 1.81 1 1.91 1 1.22 1 two.19 1 1.55 1 1.86 1 1.51 1 1.13 1 1.0.74.0.0.80.0.1.03.0.1 1.62 1 1.0.84.0.1.28.0.1.12.0.0.74.0.1.34.0.1 1.60 1 1.1.17.0.1.33.0.1.08.0.0.93.0.1.60.0.1 1.56 1 1.32 1 1.37 1 1.1.ten.0.1.18.0.0.99.0.1.40.0.1.01.0.1.03.0.0.89.0.0.74.0.0.92.0.2014 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley Sons Ltd.NLR for Predicting Palliative ChemotherapyP. Xue et al.Table 3. Univariate and multivariate evaluation of poor prognostic elements for OS. Median OS (95 CI) (months) Univariate analysis Hazard ratio Multivariate analysis Hazard ration95 CIP-value95 CIP-valueAge (years) 65 148 12.1 65 104 11.3 Gender Female 119 11.9 Male 133 11.9 ECOG PS 0 242 12.0 2 10 4.4 Distant metastasis No 68 16.7 Yes 184 11.two Principal tumor location Body and tail 106 12.two Head 146 11.2 The status of initially unresectable/recurrent Recurrent 73 15.six Initially unresectable 179 11.1 NLR 5 212 12.8 five 40 6.0 PLR 150 104 15.0 150 148 10.6 CA19-9 (U/mL) 1000 196 13.4 1000 56 6.5 CEA.
