Skip to main content

Table 3 Statistical analysis of TransATAC validation cohort

From: Novel 18-gene signature for predicting relapse in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

Score

No. of patients (relapses)

Univariate comparisons

Multivariable comparisons

CTS + signature vs CTS

CTS + signature

LRχ2

p Value

HR (95% CI)

P diff

C-index (SE)

ΔLRχ2

p Value

HR (95% CI)

P diff

C-index (SE)

0–10 years

 

 CTS

314 (59)

48.7

< 0.001

2.16 (1.79–2.62)

–

0.674 (0.018)

–

–

–

–

–

 10-Year signature

28

< 0.001

1.98 (1.54–2.55)

Reference

0.671 (0.026)

7.9

0.005

1.49 (1.13–1.96)

Reference

0.709 (0.021)

 Early signature

33.4

< 0.001

2.06 (1.62–2.61)

0.334

0.678 (0.024)

10.3

0.001

1.55 (1.19–2.02)

0.48

0.711 (0.020)

 Late signature

18.1

< 0.001

1.72 (1.34–2.20)

0.000

0.642 0(.029)

4.3

0.037

1.33 (1.02–1.74)

0.004

0.700 (0.022)

0–5 years

 

 CTS

314 (26)

29

< 0.001

2.04 (1.53–2.74)

–

0.679 (0.023)

–

–

–

–

–

 10-Year signature

14.1

< 0.001

2.05 (1.41–2.98)

0.833

0.678 (0.037)

3.2

0.073

1.46 (0.97–2.19)

0.77

0.712 (0.029)

 Early signature

14.9

< 0.001

2.00 (1.42–2.81)

Reference

0.672 (0.035)

2.8

0.096

1.40 (0.95–2.06)

Reference

0.705 (0.028)

 Late signature

8.9

0.003

1.77 (1.22–2.57)

0.138

0.648 (0.042)

1.7

0.19

1.31 (0.87–1.97)

0.65

0.705 (0.031)

5–10 years

 

 CTS

270 (33)

19.8

< 0.001

1.84 (1.33–2.54)

–

0.657 (0.026)

–

–

–

–

–

 10-Year signature

13.9

< 0.001

1.93 (1.37–2.72)

0.027

0.663 (0.036)

4.8

0.028

1.53 (1.05–2.22)

0.14

0.696 (0.030)

 Early signature

18.6

< 0.001

2.11 (1.52–2.94)

0.091

0.681 (0.032)

8

0.005

1.70 (1.19–2.43)

0.14

0.708 (0.028)

 Late signature

9.3

0.002

1.68 (1.21–2.34)

Reference

0.636 (0.038)

2.7

0.099

1.36 (0.95–1.94)

Reference

0.686 (0.031)

  1. CTS Clinical Treatment Score, LR Likelihood ratio
  2. Both univariate and multivariable analyses are presented for years 0–10, years 0–5, and years 5–10 separately. Likelihood ratio test based on Cox proportional hazards models for univariate and multivariable analyses. Differences in likelihood ratio values (ΔLRχ2) were used. CTS was used as a covariate in the multivariable regressions. For each score, HRs per SD change are presented