Comparison Of Kaplan Meier Curves Between Imdc Risk Groups Top Kaplan meier analysis showed that patients with a higher total fat index had significantly higher overall survival and progression free survival than patients with a low total fat index (44.5 vs. Kaplan–meier overall survival curves in intermediate imdc risk patients according to the platelet count (≤ uln, > uln) (a) and according to resulting from cart algorithm (b). table 2 multivariable cox model including the six predictors of the imdc score with backward selection procedure: percentage of selection of significant predictors.
Comparison Of Kaplan Meier Curves Between Imdc Risk Groups Top Intermediate (2–3), or low risk (4). comparison of os and pfs between the risk groups was performed via kaplan meier method and log rank test. concordance statistics (c statistics) were used to quantify the discriminatory magnitude of the predictive model. results most patients (70%) were male and more than one quarter (26%) had an ecog ps 2. Kaplan–meier curves with a log rank test were used to compare os between new risk groups. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. median follow up time was calculated by the reversed kaplan–meier method. missing data: we were able to obtain 98% of all data points, and the final model was built on 122 patients. Patient outcomes were compared between imdc risk groups within treatment groups. os, ttnt, and td were calculated using the kaplan meier method with significant log rank p < 0.05. patient demographics and baseline characteristics were described as proportions (%) for categorical variables and medians (interquartile range) for continuous variables. Kaplan–meier curve of stratified risk groups by metastatic renal cell carcinoma prognostic models in external validation cohort (a. krocs model, b. mskcc model, c. imdc model). table 2 illustrates the result of multivariable cox proportional hazards analysis of krocs in the model developing cohort (n = 619) and the external validation cohort.
Comparison Of Kaplan Meier Curves Between Imdc Risk Groups Top Patient outcomes were compared between imdc risk groups within treatment groups. os, ttnt, and td were calculated using the kaplan meier method with significant log rank p < 0.05. patient demographics and baseline characteristics were described as proportions (%) for categorical variables and medians (interquartile range) for continuous variables. Kaplan–meier curve of stratified risk groups by metastatic renal cell carcinoma prognostic models in external validation cohort (a. krocs model, b. mskcc model, c. imdc model). table 2 illustrates the result of multivariable cox proportional hazards analysis of krocs in the model developing cohort (n = 619) and the external validation cohort. The nonparametric kaplan–meier method was used to estimate the progression free survival and overall survival curves and the percentage of participants who were event free at selected time points. Comparison of kaplan meier curves between imdc risk groups (top panel) and body composition risk groups (bottom panel) for progression free survival (pfs) conclusions risk stratification using the body composition variables ifi, sm mean, sfi, and tfi may be prognostic and predictive of clinical outcomes in mrcc patients treated with ici.
Comparison Between The Meet Uro Prognostic Score And Imdc Risk Groups The nonparametric kaplan–meier method was used to estimate the progression free survival and overall survival curves and the percentage of participants who were event free at selected time points. Comparison of kaplan meier curves between imdc risk groups (top panel) and body composition risk groups (bottom panel) for progression free survival (pfs) conclusions risk stratification using the body composition variables ifi, sm mean, sfi, and tfi may be prognostic and predictive of clinical outcomes in mrcc patients treated with ici.