Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Multivariable analysis with OS and EFS in the primary cohort of 179 AML patients (TCGA dataset)

From: High expression of ETS2 predicts poor prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia and may guide treatment decisions

Variables in final model by end point HR 95% CI P value
OS (all AML, n = 179)
 ETS2 expression, high vs. low 1.79 1.23–2.59 0.002
 Age, per 10-year increase 1.46 1.27–1.68 <0.001
 CEBPA mutation vs. wild 1.75 0.85–3.58 0.13
 NPM1 mutation vs. wild 1.1 0.73–1.66 0.65
 FLT3-ITD, presented vs. others 1.24 0.78–1.96 0.37
EFS (all AML, n = 179)
 ETS2 expression, high vs. low 1.88 1.32–2.68 <0.001
 Age, per 10-year increase 1.34 1.18–1.53 <0.001
 CEBPA mutation vs. wild 1.2 0.92–3.57 0.08
 NPM1 mutation vs. wild 1.2 0.83–1.78 0.3
 FLT3-ITD, presented vs. others 1.4 0.9–2.15 0.1
RFS (all AML, n = 177)
 ETS2 expression, high vs. low 2.23 1.41–3.5 <0.001
 Age, per 10-year increase 1.13 0.96–1.33 0.14
 CEBPA mutation vs. wild 0.4 0.94–4.48 0.07
 NPM1 mutation vs. wild 0.25 0.81–2.15 0.26
 FLT3-ITD, presented vs. others 1.47 0.86–2.53 0.16
  1. OS overall survival, EFS event-free survival, RFS relapse-free survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval