Table 3.

PFS ratio and OS comparisons

Percentage of patients with PFS2/PFS1≥1.3a
UnivariableMultivariable
ParametersPercentageWaldPWaldP
Matched8.160.0043.620.057
 Yes (n = 53)45.3%
 No (n = 57)19.3%
Breast11.20.0016.520.011
 Yes (n = 35)54.3%
 No (n = 75)21.3%
Brain2.030.154NANA
 Yes (n = 7)57%
 No (n = 103)30%
Gastrointestinal5.360.021NANA
 Yes (n = 22)9%
 No (n = 88)37.5%
Genitourinary1.080.298NANA
 Yes (n = 15)20%
 No (n = 95)34%
Head and neck0.780.377NANA
 Yes (n = 14)21%
 No (n = 96)33%
Lung1.000.317NANA
 Yes (n = 11)18%
 No (n = 99)33%
Skin/melanoma0.1600.689NANA
 Yes (n = 5)40%
 No (n = 105)31%
Metastasis at time of biopsy1.660.197NANA
 Yes (n = 86)35%
 No (n = 24)21%
Single agent (n = 62)34%0.2760.600NANA
Combination (n = 48)29%
OS analysisb
UnivariableMultivariable
ParametersMedian (Mo, 95%CI)χ2PWaldP
Matched0.670.414NANA
 Yes (n = 87)14.4 (10.8–17.9)
 No (n = 93)11.4 (5.8–17.0)
Breast2.230.136NANA
 Yes (n = 60)15.7 (6.1–25.4)
 No (n = 120)11.1 (7.2–15.1)
Brain0.190.666NANA
 Yes (n = 15)14.0 (5.3–22.6)
 No (n = 165)11.9 (8.1–15.7)
Gastrointestinal0.890.346NANA
 Yes (n = 35)12.7 (5.6–19.7)
 No (n = 145)14.0 (10.0–17.9)
Genitourinary0.0020.963NANA
 Yes (n = 22)10.0 (7.5–12.6)
 No (n = 158)14.0 (10.6–17.3)
Head and neck2.010.156NANA
 Yes (n = 16)8.4 (5.9–11.0)
 No (n = 164)14.4 (11.0–17.7)
Lung0.0420.837NANA
 Yes (n = 16)9.9 (—)
 No (n = 164)12.7 (9.0–16.3)
Skin/melanoma0.0230.878NANA
 Yes (n = 11)10.2 (7.3–13.0)
 No (n = 169)12.7 (9.0–16.3)
Metastasis at time of diagnostic0.0080.927NANA
 Yes (n = 138)12.7(—)
 No (n = 42)12.6 (8.9–16.4)
Therapy was 1st line3.840.0505.480.019
 Yes (n = 43)15.5 (—)
 No (n = 137)10.6 (8.4–12.9)
Single agent (n = 95)11.1 (5.8–16.3)0.4630.496NANA
Combination (n = 85)14.0 (11.1–16.8)
CDKN2A3.160.0782.830.093
 Yes (n = 34)10.5 (6.9–14.1)
 No (n = 146)14.7 (8.9–20.6)
TP533.770.052NANA
 Yes (n = 87)10.6 (8.8–12.5)
 No (n = 93)15.7 (10.7–20.7)
PTEN0.2970.586NANA
 Yes (n = 19)8.4 (2.3–14.5)
 No (n = 161)14.0 (10.4–17.6)
Matching-score > 0.2 (n = 122)15.7 (—)3.620.0574.240.040
Matching-score ≤ 0.2 (n = 58)10.6 (8.1–13.2)
  • aLogistic regression analysis was used (univariables and multivariable); variables with P < 0.05 were included in the multivariable backward conditional model. The Wald test is a way of testing the significance of variables in a statistical model; the higher the Wald, the higher the association in the model. When the propensity score was added as a covariate with “matched vs. not,” the P value for “matched vs. not” was 0.087 (Wald = 2.93). With the inverse propensity weighting method, the P value for “matched vs. not” was 0.079 (Wald = 3.15).

  • bP values were computed using the Kaplan–Meier method (log-rank test for univariable and Cox regression for multivariate analysis); variables with P < 0.2 were included in the Cox regression model (multivariable, backward conditional model). —, in some cases, the 95% CI could not be computed. The χ2 and Wald values test the significance of variables in the statistical model; the higher the χ2 or Wald, the higher the association in the model. The matching-score was calculated by dividing the number derived from the matches in each patient (numerator) by the number of aberrations (denominator). The cutoff value of 0.2 was chosen with the minimum P value criteria (21).