Comparison between different reconstruction routes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Table 4 Univariate and multivariate Cox’s regression analysis predicting overall survival

Factor	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	HR (95% CI)	P value1	HR (95% CI)	P value1
Age (yr)2	1.642 (1.097-2.460)	0.016	1.013 (0.991-1.035)	0.245
Sex3	0.690 (0.431-1.107)	0.124	0.690 (0.428-1.112)	0.127
BMI (kg/m2)	0.974 (0.917-1.035)	0.400
Smoking index4	1.499 (1.019-2.204)	0.040	1.000 (1.000-1.001)	0.596
Preoperative albumin level (g/L)	0.952 (0.917-0.988)	0.009	0.949 (0.912-0.987)	0.009
Tumor location5	0.872 (0.663-1.148)	0.330
pT6	1.768 (1.209-2.585)	0.003	1.708 (1.163-2.508)	0.006
pN7	1.903 (1.571-2.306)	< 0.001	1.848 (1.525-2.239)	< 0.001
Tumor grade8	0.984 (0.731-1.324)	0.915
Surgical bleeding	1.001 (0.999-1.002)	0.285
Lymphadenectomy	0.655 (0.384-1.115)	0.119	0.779 (0.454-1.339)	0.367
Reconstruction9	1.157 (0.775-1.727)	0.477

¹Cox’s proportional hazards model;

²≤ 65 years of age vs > 65 years of age;

³Male vs female;

⁴≤ 400 vs > 400;

⁵Upper thoracic vs middle thoracic vs lower thoracic;

⁶pT1 vs pT2 vs pT3;

⁷pN0 vs pN1 vs pN2 vs pN3;

⁸G1 vs G2 vs G3;

⁹Posterior mediastinal reconstruction vs retrosternal reconstruction. HR: Hazard ratio; pN: Pathological node; pT: Pathological tumor.