Hospital type- and volume-outcome relationships in esophageal cancer patients receiving non-surgical treatments

Table 4 Cox regression analysis of the relationship between prognostic factors and outcome in patients without esophagectomy

Variables	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
				Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	HR	95%CI	P value	HR	95%CI	P value	HR	95%CI	P value	HR	95%CI	P value
Age (yr)
< 55	1	-		1	-
≥ 55	0.94	0.88-1.01	0.091	0.96	0.90-1.03	0.288	0.96	0.90-1.03	0.297	0.96	0.90-1.04	0.322
Sex
Male	1	-		1	-
Female	0.86	0.73-1.00	0.053	0.9	0.76-1.06	0.19	0.9	0.76-1.05	0.185	0.89	0.76-1.05	0.176
cT stage
T1/2	1	-		1	-
T3/4	1.77	1.61-1.96	< 0.001	1.55	1.40-1.73	< 0.001	1.56	1.40-1.73	< 0.001	1.55	1.39-1.73	< 0.001
cN stage
N negative	1	-		1	-
N positive	1.64	1.48-1.81	< 0.001	1.22	1.09-1.37	0.001	1.22	1.09-1.37	0.001	1.21	1.08-1.36	0.001
cM stage
0	1	-		1	-
1	1.67	1.56-1.80	< 0.001	1.52	1.41-1.64	< 0.001	1.52	1.41-1.64	< 0.001	1.52	1.41-1.64	< 0.001
Hospital type
Medical center	1	-		1	-
Not center	0.92	0.86-0.99	0.028	0.97	0.90-1.05	0.447
Hospital volume
Q3-4	1	-		1	-
Q1-2	0.97	0.90-1.03	0.315				0.99	0.92-1.06	0.694
Hospital volume
Q4	1	-
Q1-3	0.87	0.80-0.94	0.001							0.91	0.83-0.99	0.028

Model 1: Impact of hospital type adjusted for age, sex and clinical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stages; Model 2: Impact of hospital volume (Q3-4 vs Q1-2) adjusted for age, sex and clinical TNM stages; Model 3: Impact of hospital volume (Q4 vs Q1-3) adjusted for age, sex and clinical TNM stages.