Table 1

Impact of the potential prognostic factors on functional outcome
Improvementn (%) No changen (%) Deterioration n (%) p
Age
   ≤65 years (n = 85) 9 (11) 53 (62) 23 (27)
   >65 years (n = 90) 12 (13) 43 (48) 35 (39) 0.54
Gender
   Female (n = 53) 8 (15) 27 (51) 18 (34)
   Male (n = 122) 13 (11) 69 (57) 40 (33) 0.42
ECOG performance score
   2 (n = 49) 10 (20) 29 (59) 10 (20)
   3-4 (n = 126) 11 (9) 67 (53) 48 (38) 0.25
Number of involved vertebrae
   1-2 (n = 55) 8 (15) 35 (64) 12 (22)
   ≥3 (n = 120) 13 (11) 61 (51) 46 (38) 0.84
Ambulatory status prior to RT
   Not Ambulatory    (n = 89) 9 (10) 46 (52) 34 (38)
   Ambulatory (n = 86) 12 (14) 50 (58) 24 (28) 0.21
Other bone metastases
   No (n = 65) 11 (17) 39 (60) 15 (23)
   Yes (n = 110) 10 (9) 57 (52) 43 (39) 0.46
Visceral metastases
   No (n = 86) 15 (17) 34 (40) 37 (43)
   Yes (n = 89) 6 (7) 62 (70) 21 (24) 0.030
Time developing motor deficits
   1-7 days (n = 88) 4 (5) 38 (43) 46 (52)
   >7 days (n = 87) 17 (20) 58 (67) 12 (14) <0.001
Radiation schedule
   Short-course RT    (n = 90) 7 (8) 60 (67) 23 (26)
   Longer-course RT    (n = 85) 14 (16) 36 (42) 35 (41) 0.86
Entire cohort (n = 175) 21 (12) 96 (55) 58 (33)

The p-values were obtained from the multivariate analysis performed with the ordered-logit model.

Douglas et al.

Douglas et al. BMC Cancer 2012 12:261   doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-261

Open Data