• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Supplemental Table 1 - Multivariable analysis of PFS with interim PET interpreted using ΔSUVmax75%.

N/A
N/A
Info
Unduh - Bebas
Protected

Academic year: 2024

Membagikan "Supplemental Table 1 - Multivariable analysis of PFS with interim PET interpreted using ΔSUVmax75%. "

Copied!
10
0
0

Memuat.... (Lihat teks lengkap sekarang)

Unduh sekarang ( 10 Halaman )

Teks penuh

(1)

Table of Contents

Supplemental Tables...2

Supplemental Table 1 - Multivariable analysis of PFS with interim PET interpreted using Deauville Score...2

Supplemental Table 2 - Multivariable analysis of PFS with interim PET interpreted using ΔSUVmax75%. ...3

Supplemental Table 3 – Multivariable analysis of OS with interim PET interpreted using ΔSUVmax75% 4 Supplemental Table 4 – Baseline characteristics for patients with high-grade FL...5

Supplemental Table 5 – Deauville scores for interim and end-of-treatment PET scans (high-grade cohort)...7

Supplemental Figures...8

Supplemental Figure 1 – PFS Forest Plot...8

Supplemental Figure 2 – PFS based on End-of-Treatment PET...8

Supplemental Figure 3 – PFS based on Interim PET Status and Use of Maintenance Rituximab...9

1

(2)

Supplemental Tables

Supplemental Table 1 - Multivariable analysis of PFS with interim PET interpreted using ΔSUVmax75%.

Univariable HR

Univariable p value

Multivariable HR

P value

ΔSUVmax75

% Yes No

3.2 < 0.001 2.8 0.0026

FLIPI high 2.0 0.020 1.8 0.047

CIT regimen RCHOP BR Other

1.3 1.4

0.35 0.54 Maintenance

rituximab

0.7 0.22 0.7 0.33

Bulk (>8 cm) 1.1 0.72

Age (10-yr inc) 1.1 0.43

Male 1.6 0.10

Baseline SUVmax SUVmax ≤ 13 SUVmax >13

0.6 0.19

(3)

Supplemental Table 2 – Multivariable analysis of OS with interim PET interpreted using ΔSUVmax75%

Univariabl e HR

Univariable p value

Multivariable HR

P value

ΔSUVmax75%

Yes

No 1.5 0.55 1.3 0.73

FLIPI high 4.9 0.026

CIT regimen RCHOP BR Other

2.8 2.3

0.16 0.47 Maintenance

rituximab

1.5 0.55

Bulk (>8 cm) 1.1 0.87

Age (10-yr inc) 3.0 < 0.001 3.9 0.056

Male 2.1 0.30

Baseline SUVmax SUVmax ≤ 13 SUVmax >13

0.8 0.75

3

(4)

Supplemental Table 3 - Multivariable analysis of OS with interim PET interpreted using Deauville Score.

Univariabl

e HR Univariable

p value Multivariable

HR P value

Interim PET DS 1-2

3-5 1.7 0.43 1.8 0.37

FLIPI high 4.9 0.026

CIT regimen RCHOP BR Other

2.8 2.3

0.16 0.47 Maintenance

rituximab 1.5 0.55

Bulk (>8 cm) 1.1 0.87

Age (10-yr inc) 3.0 < 0.001 3.0 <0.001

Male 2.1 0.30

Baseline SUVmax SUVmax ≤ 13

SUVmax >13 0.8 0.75

(5)

Supplemental Table 4 – Baseline characteristics for patients with high- grade FL

Center

Total DFCI MSK

p-value

n = 50 (%) n = 28 (56) n = 22 (44)

Age at diagnosis

Median (range) 60 (26 - 86) 58 (26 - 77) 65 (39 - 86) 0.094†

Sex

Female 26 (52) 14 (50) 12 (55) 0.78‡

Grade

3b 33 (66) 15 (54) 18 (82) 0.47^

3 NOS 12 (24) 12 (43) -

Unknown 5 (10) 1 (4) 4 (18)

Stage

1 3 (6) 2 (7) 1 (5) 0.52^

2 8 (16) 4 (14) 4 (18)

3 16 (32) 11 (39) 5 (23)

4 23 (46) 11 (39) 12 (55)

B symptoms

Yes 8 (16) 3 (11) 5 (23) 0.28‡

FLIPI score

Low (0-1) 13 (26) 9 (32) 4 (18) 0.28‡

Intermediate (2) 18 (36) 11 (39) 7 (32)

High (3-5) 19 (38) 8 (29) 11 (50)

Maximum disease bulk (cm)

Median (range) 4.30 (1.10 - 18.33) 4.50 (1.10 - 14.90) 3.61 (1.95 - 18.33) 0.66† Baseline SUVmax

Median (range) 13.15 (3.60 - 69.30) 12.80 (3.60 - 69.30) 14.32 (4.57 - 31.00) 0.91† Immunochemotherapy regimen

RCHOP 47 (94) 27 (96) 20 (91) 0.72‡

BR 1 (2) - 1 (5)

Other* 2 (4) 1 (4) 1 (5)

Interim PET after x cycles

2 7 (14) 2 (7) 5 (23) 0.75^

3 37 (74) 24 (86) 13 (59)

4 6 (12) 2 (7) 4 (18)

Consolidative radiation therapy after immunochemotherapy

Yes 1 (2) - 1 (5) 0.44‡

5

(6)

No 49 (98) 28 (100) 21 (95) Received rituximab maintenance

Yes 7 (14) 3 (11) 4 (18) 0.68‡

No 43 (86) 25 (89) 18 (82)

Doses of rituximab maintenance

Median (range) 6 (3 - 12) 6 (5 - 9) 6 (3 - 12) > 0.99‡

†Wilcoxon rank-sum test, ‡Fisher's exact test, ^Cochran-Armitage test

*Other regimens: RCVP (n=1), R-CEOP (n=1)

(7)

Supplemental Table 5 – Deauville scores for interim and end-of- treatment PET scans (high-grade cohort)

Interim PET DS DFCI MSKCC Combined

1 8 (29%) 11 (50%) 19 (38%)

2 16 (57%) 7 (32%) 23 (46%)

3 2 (7%) 2 (9%) 4 (8%)

4 0 (0%) 2 (9%) 2 (4%)

5 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%)

EOT PET DS DFCI MSKCC Combined

1 13 (46%) 8 (36%) 21 (42%)

2 11 (39%) 4 (18%) 15 (30%)

3 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

4 1 (4%) 1 (5%) 2 (4%)

5 2 (7%) 1 (5%) 3 (6%)

Unavailable for

review 1 (4%) 8 (36%) 9 (18%)

7

(8)

Supplemental Figures

Supplemental Figure 1 – PFS Forest Plot

Supplemental Figure 1 – PFS Forest Plot. Comparison of PFS between patients with a DS of 4-5 vs a DS of 1-2 among patient subgroups.

Supplemental Figure 2 – PFS based on End-of-Treatment PET

Supplemental Figure 2 – PFS based on End-of-Treatment PET assessed using DS among (left) patients with a DS of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or (right) among patients with a DS of 1-3 vs 4-5.

(9)

Supplemental Figure 3 – PFS based on Interim PET Status and Use of Maintenance Rituximab

(A)

(B)

(C)

9

(10)

Supplemental Figure 3 - PFS based on Interim PET status and Use of Maintenance Rituximab, among patients with (A) a negative interim PET scan (DS 1-2), (B) a positive interim PET scan (DS 3-5), and (C) a negative interim PET (DS 1-2) followed by a positive end-of-treatment PET (DS 4-5).

Referensi

Unduh sekarang ( DOCX - 10 Halaman - 1.18 MB )

Dokumen terkait

pet animal feeding habit (1).pdf - DSpace@CVASU

List of tables Table No Content Page No 1 Status of pet owner N=50 09 2 Feeding behavior of pet animal 09-10 3 Association of feeding practices with digestive disorder of

(1)Supplementary Table 1: Baseline characteristics of the cohorts at time of diagnosis with acute HIV infection Characteristic

Supplementary Table 1: Baseline characteristics of the cohorts at time of diagnosis with acute HIV infection Characteristic.. Time post seroconversion; days [median IQR] Age; years

Supplemental Table 1: Review of patients undergoing percutaneous left ventricular assist device exclusion

Supplemental Table 1: Review of patients undergoing percutaneous left ventricular assist device exclusion Author, Year Age; Sex; Etiology Type of LVAD; Duration of support;

Design of Table with Adjustable Height

3 Figure 2: Survey respond on the condition of the current study table used 4 Figure 3: FYP flowchart 10 Figure 4: Sub assembly 1 19 Figure 5: Sub assembly 2 20 Figure 6: Isometric

TABLE E-1 Distribution of Radiographs

Radler eAppendix Page 2 of 4 TABLE E-3 Observer Differences with Regard to Measurements Made on Lateral Radiographs and Lateral Radiographs with the Foot in Maximum Dorsiflexion*

Supplemental Table 1. LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL COMPARISON OF PREDICTIVE FACTORS AMONG PATIENTS WITH GRADE 1 OR 2/GRADE 3 OR 4 DERMATITIS

LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL COMPARISON OF PREDICTIVE FACTORS AMONG PATIENTS WITH GRADE 1 OR 2/GRADE 3 OR 4 DERMATITIS , CONTINUED Characteristics Proportion Logistic Regression Model

Supplemental Material: The cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus screening in hemodialysis patients Supplemental Table 1: CHEERS 2022 Reporting Checklist .......................................................... 2

Outbreak Duration Formula: Outbreak Duration = Antibody window period + 0.5*Baseline Screening Interval + 2*Outbreak Screening interval 3 months + Time from diagnosis until 4 weeks

Supplemental Digital Table 1 Summary of Studies about Rural Medical Education Training Experiences of Medical Students in North America, from a 2009 Literature Review and Analysis

Supplemental Digital Table 1 Summary of Studies about Rural Medical Education Training Experiences of Medical Students in North America, from a 2009 Literature Review and Analysis