Share this post on:

Iwan, the nearly complete follow-up of any infectious events among the whole study population, and the regular monitoring of diagnosis accuracy and treatment by the National Health Insurance Bureau of Taiwan. Compared withTable 3. Infection rate head and neck cancer patients treated with different treatment modality.Variables With cetuximab (n = 158) Surgery+Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy (n = 76) Chemotherapy/Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy (n = 82) Without cetuximab (n = 925) Surgery+Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy(n = 486) Chemotherapy/Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy(n = 439)Infection eventInfection rateP-value* 0.1418.4 22.0 0.5411.1 8.*P value of Pearson’s chi-square test between the cetuximab group v.s without cetuximab group is ,0.001. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050163.tInfection Risk in HNC with Cetuximab TherapyTable 4. One-year cumulative risk of infection among the patients with cetuximab and those without (n = 1083)a.StratumWith cetuximab (n = 158) No. of stratum 5.6 6.9 7.4 11.5 41.7 Risk ( ) 0 20 31.3 24 20 19.Without cetuximab (n = 925) No. 204 202 201 192 126 925 of stratum 94.4 93.1 92.6 88.5 58.3 Risk ( ) 9.3 10.9 9.5 9.9 11.1 10.order SR-3029 P-value1 2 3 4 5 Total12 15 16 25 900.268 0.286 0.007 0.038 0.07 ,0.001 0.001bStratum 1 had the strongest propensity for not receiving cetuximab therapy; stratum 5, for receiving cetuximab therapy. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics; adjusted odds ratio = 2.27, 95 confidence interval = 1.46?.54. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050163.tbarandomized-controlled series or meta-analyses, the NHIRD is a real medical practice record that reflects the day-by-day medical care. Our series used two statistical MedChemExpress K162 methods, propensity score analysis and instrumental variable analysis. The propensity scoreswere used to stratify patients into five groups with similar propensity scores in order to reduce the effects of selection bias between the different treatment groups [18,19,21]. HNC patients treated with cetuximab were found to have increased 1676428 rates ofFigure 3. Distribution of explanatory variables between patients in high-use and low-use cetuximab hospitals (a) and infection rates (b). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050163.gInfection Risk in HNC with Cetuximab TherapyTable 5. Characteristics of head and neck cancer patients in high-cetuximab and low-cetuximab use hospitals (n = 611).High-use (n = 313) n( ) Age,yr (Mean6SD) Male gender Charlson Comorbidity Index Score 1 Socioeconomic status High (NT 20001 or Urbanization level Rural Region of residence Southern/Eastern Treatment Chemotherapy/Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy 158(51) 104(33) 109(35) US 626) 81(26) 145(46) 59612 302(96)Low-use (n = 298) n( ) 56611 285(96)P-value0.002 0.590 0.159(53) 0.840 75(25) 0.094 85(29) ,0.001 21(7) 0.028 124(42)*Parenthesis is percentage of 15857111 patients in high-use or low-use hospitals.infection. Using IVA to control both the measured and unmeasured confounding factors, we did not find statistically differences between cetuximab and the rate of infections. The severity of comorbidities, the cancer stage, certain social factors such as employment, and patient preferences were difficult to capture correctly from the dataset. Referral selection may depend on the interactions between the comorbidities and cancer stage. All these unmeasured factors could produce significant bias using traditional approaches. Despite the efforts to simulate the Table 6. Marginal effect of cetuximab on infection event using instrumental variable analysis for one-year follow-up (n = 611.Iwan, the nearly complete follow-up of any infectious events among the whole study population, and the regular monitoring of diagnosis accuracy and treatment by the National Health Insurance Bureau of Taiwan. Compared withTable 3. Infection rate head and neck cancer patients treated with different treatment modality.Variables With cetuximab (n = 158) Surgery+Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy (n = 76) Chemotherapy/Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy (n = 82) Without cetuximab (n = 925) Surgery+Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy(n = 486) Chemotherapy/Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy(n = 439)Infection eventInfection rateP-value* 0.1418.4 22.0 0.5411.1 8.*P value of Pearson’s chi-square test between the cetuximab group v.s without cetuximab group is ,0.001. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050163.tInfection Risk in HNC with Cetuximab TherapyTable 4. One-year cumulative risk of infection among the patients with cetuximab and those without (n = 1083)a.StratumWith cetuximab (n = 158) No. of stratum 5.6 6.9 7.4 11.5 41.7 Risk ( ) 0 20 31.3 24 20 19.Without cetuximab (n = 925) No. 204 202 201 192 126 925 of stratum 94.4 93.1 92.6 88.5 58.3 Risk ( ) 9.3 10.9 9.5 9.9 11.1 10.P-value1 2 3 4 5 Total12 15 16 25 900.268 0.286 0.007 0.038 0.07 ,0.001 0.001bStratum 1 had the strongest propensity for not receiving cetuximab therapy; stratum 5, for receiving cetuximab therapy. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics; adjusted odds ratio = 2.27, 95 confidence interval = 1.46?.54. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050163.tbarandomized-controlled series or meta-analyses, the NHIRD is a real medical practice record that reflects the day-by-day medical care. Our series used two statistical methods, propensity score analysis and instrumental variable analysis. The propensity scoreswere used to stratify patients into five groups with similar propensity scores in order to reduce the effects of selection bias between the different treatment groups [18,19,21]. HNC patients treated with cetuximab were found to have increased 1676428 rates ofFigure 3. Distribution of explanatory variables between patients in high-use and low-use cetuximab hospitals (a) and infection rates (b). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050163.gInfection Risk in HNC with Cetuximab TherapyTable 5. Characteristics of head and neck cancer patients in high-cetuximab and low-cetuximab use hospitals (n = 611).High-use (n = 313) n( ) Age,yr (Mean6SD) Male gender Charlson Comorbidity Index Score 1 Socioeconomic status High (NT 20001 or Urbanization level Rural Region of residence Southern/Eastern Treatment Chemotherapy/Chemotherapy+Radiotherapy 158(51) 104(33) 109(35) US 626) 81(26) 145(46) 59612 302(96)Low-use (n = 298) n( ) 56611 285(96)P-value0.002 0.590 0.159(53) 0.840 75(25) 0.094 85(29) ,0.001 21(7) 0.028 124(42)*Parenthesis is percentage of 15857111 patients in high-use or low-use hospitals.infection. Using IVA to control both the measured and unmeasured confounding factors, we did not find statistically differences between cetuximab and the rate of infections. The severity of comorbidities, the cancer stage, certain social factors such as employment, and patient preferences were difficult to capture correctly from the dataset. Referral selection may depend on the interactions between the comorbidities and cancer stage. All these unmeasured factors could produce significant bias using traditional approaches. Despite the efforts to simulate the Table 6. Marginal effect of cetuximab on infection event using instrumental variable analysis for one-year follow-up (n = 611.

Share this post on:

Author: Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitors