Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of baseline characteristics between subgroups in the unadjusted and inverse probability weighting (IPW)-adjusted cohorts

From: Improving on-treatment risk stratification of cancer patients with refined response classification and integration of circulating tumor DNA kinetics

Covariates Pre cfEBV DNA Post-NAC MRI Post-NAC cfEBV DNA Response phenotypes
UN IPWa UN IPWb UN IPWb UN IPWb
Age 0.51 0.59 0.58 0.83 0.19 0.85 0.14 0.59
Sex 0.71 0.53 0.15 0.58 0.18 0.77 0.08 0.16
Smoking 0.37 0.82 0.36 0.74 0.11 0.99 0.17 0.43
Alcohol 0.96 0.70 0.59 0.86 0.68 0.77 0.32 0.52
Pre cfEBV DNA 0.76 0.76 <0.01 0.99 <0.01 0.14
T stage 0.43 0.94 0.57 0.65 0.42 0.80 <0.01 0.23
N stage <0.01 0.87 0.72 0.46 <0.01 0.94 <0.01 0.10
NAC cycles 0.94 0.95 0.02 0.40 0.17 0.97 0.02 0.22
NAC regimens 0.12 0.97 <0.01 0.29 0.27 0.87 0.03 0.09
CCD 0.71 0.46 0.27 0.29 0.53 0.83 0.03 0.10
  1. Abbreviations: CCD Cumulative cisplatin doses, cfEBV DNA Cell-free Epstein-Barr virus DNA, IPW Inverse probability weighting, MRI Magnetic resonance imaging, N Node, NAC Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Pre Pretreatment, T Tumor, UN Unadjusted
  2. aThe following variables were adjusted via IPW algorithm: age (<45 vs. ≥45 years), sex (male vs. female), smoking (No vs. Yes), alcohol (No vs. Yes), T stage (T1-2 vs. T3-4), N stage (N0-1 vs. N2-3), NAC regimens (TPF vs. GP vs. TP vs. PF vs. others), NAC cycles (2 cycles vs. 3 cycles vs. 4 cycles), CCD (<160vs. ≥160 mg/m2). Two-sided P-values were calculated using the chi-square test
  3. bThe following variables were adjusted via IPW algorithm: age (<45 vs. ≥45 years), sex (male vs. female), smoking (No vs. Yes), alcohol (No vs. Yes), pretreatment EBV DNA (<2 vs. ≥2 × 103 copies/mL), T stage (T1-2 vs. T3-4), N stage (N0-1 vs. N2-3), IC regimens (TPF vs. GP vs. TP vs. PF vs. others), IC cycles (2 cycles vs. 3 cycles vs. 4 cycles), CCD (<160 vs. ≥160 mg/m2). Two-sided P-values were calculated using the chi-square test