Unfortunately, in the initially report there was no significant difference in median overall survival of 11.2 months (95% CI 9.5–12.7) in the experimental arm versus 10.0 months (95% CI 8.3–11.0) in the placebo group; however, the p value was very close to significance at p = 0.053.
There were no cytokines with baseline levels associated with rPFS in Cohort 2a (Cox regression p ≥ 0.05, Figure S1c, File S1 ), although IL6 almost reached statistical significance with p = 0.053 (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.998–1.34). 3.4.
A separate analysis of the CSS of patients whose primary tumors were examined showed a trend toward a worse survival outcome ( p = 0.053, Figure 5 D, bottom panel).
Although ITGA11 did not reach statistical significance in the multivariate analysis, it showed a clear trend toward being an independent prognostic risk factor (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.024 [0.992–4.131], p = 0.053; Table S7 ).
When analyzing survival in all patients (stages I–IV), a borderline significance was observed (HR = 0.87, p = 0.053; median survival in the low-expression cohort = 19.4 months, median survival in the high-expression cohort = 21 months) ( Figure 1 B).
Similarly, no effect on RFS was found across any stage, although the Stage I patients showed a trend toward significance for opioid use as a risk factor ( p = 0.053).
A similar correlation was found in the case of nuclear Gal-8, though statistically this association was of borderline significance ( p = 0.053) only ( Figure 2 and Figure 3 D).
Gross total resection showed a trend toward improved survival (HR = 0.563, 95% CI: 0.315–1.007, p = 0.053), though it did not reach statistical significance. 5-ALA remained non-significant in the multivariable model (HR = 0.885, 95% CI: 0.554–1.413, p = 0.608), suggesting that while it improves resection extent, it does not independently affect survival when accounting for other clinical variables. 3.6.
As the BCLC staging system is the most widely used algorithm for treatment allocation and determination of prognosis of patients with HCC [ 2 ], we also performed subgroup analyses stratified according to BCLC stage, and found a significant prognostic effect of the combined score on overall survival only in the BCLC A group, although in BCLC B and C patients, a strong trend was observed ( p = 0.053 and 0.052, respectively) ( Figure 5 c).
In patients who were given chemotherapy, high LAIR-1 expression showed a trend of shorter patient survival (HR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.8–1.6, p = 0.053: Figure 4 A).
We did observe that men with more aggressive localized disease (GS ≥ 4 + 3) showed a trend to have a greater mean WC compared to men with less aggressive disease (GS ≤ 3 + 4; p = 0.054), but there was no difference in mean BMI.
The favorable prognostic impact on PFS of SOCS1 mutations described in the prior report [ 36 ] was maintained, although with borderline significance, also in the cohort analyzed by the present study (2-year PFS 93% vs. 70%, p = 0.054), while there was no evident impact on OS (100.0% vs. 86.8% at 2 years, p = 0.167).
The logistic regression models for the 101-gene model with three prespecified alternative IM subtype thresholds only approached significant predictive power (OR, 3.03–3.14; p = 0.054), and results were very similar with all three thresholds ( Table 3 ).
On the other hand, ABCB1 (rs3842) genotype showed a trend of association with MR E/NDM ( p = 0.054) and moderate association with MR E/4-HT ( p = 0.039).
They were also more likely to choose survival length over balance between side-effects and survival as their main priority when choosing between treatment options, but this was borderline significant ( p = 0.054).
ECR rate was significantly higher in patients with clinically smaller tumors (OR = 2.7, p = 0.002), unifocal type (OR = 4.0, p = 0.035), and on the borderline of significance with Ki-67 proliferative index ≥65% (OR = 1.8, p = 0.054).
This classification was more effective than HRAC alone, which could only achieve marginal significance (log-rank test = 3.7, p = 0.054; Figure 3 b), likely due to the limited size of the dataset.
Other factors potentially altering lymphatic drainage include increased uterine volume, which showed a near-significant association with mapping failure ( p = 0.054).
We note that the mean difference between these groups on the interference measure (test 3–test 2) of the Stroop test showed a trend towards significance (incomplete follow up M = −0.35 vs. complete follow up M = 0.07, p = 0.054). 3.3.