Table 5.

Results of DFS analysis by Cox proportional hazards model

UnivariateMultivariatea
Prognostic factorRR (95% CI)PRR (95% CI)P
T-bet
 Low vs. high4.72a (1.30a–41.54a)0.0133b5.62 (1.48–50.19)0.0027b
HER2
 Positive vs. negative2.30 (1.35–3.93)0.00230.92 (0.40–1.86)0.8209
Menopausal status
 Pre/peri vs. post1.28 (0.88–1.87)0.20220.84 (0.36–1.94)0.6824
ER
 Negative/equivocal vs. ND/positive1.26 (0.83–1.91)0.28581.14 (0.62–2.032)0.6661
Tumor size
 2–5 cm vs. <2 cm2.16 (1.45–3.20)0.00012.01 (1.20–3.45)0.0102
 >5 cm vs. <2 cm3.46 (1.68–7.11)0.00072.64 (1.00–6.02)0.0332
Histologic grade
 Grade 2–3 vs. grade 13.48 (1.94–6.24)<0.00013.78 (1.67–10.44)0.0044
 ND vs. grade 13.51 (1.67–7.38)0.00105.08 (1.79–15.87)0.0033
Lymphatic invasion
 Present vs. absent2.12 (1.36–3.31)0.00102.38 (1.36–4.06)0.0020
Age at diagnosis, years
 Linear0.88 (0.74–1.04)0.13170.94 (0.67–1.34)0.7334
 Quadratic0.93 (0.81–1.06)0.26150.99 (0.83–1.17)0.9177
Adjuvant treatment
 Hormonal vs. none0.55 (0.36–0.82)0.00380.51 (0.29–0.86)0.0132
 Chemotherapy vs. none0.94 (0.58–1.52)0.80870.60 (0.29–1.17)0.1415
  • aFirth penalized regression.

  • bFrom the likelihood ratio test; all other P values are from the Wald test.