Skip to main content

Table 1 Patient characteristics before and after propensity score matching

From: Feasibility of subtotal esophagectomy with systematic lymphadenectomy in selected elderly patients with esophageal cancer; a propensity score matching analysis

Characteristic

Unmatched comparison

Matched comparison

Non-elderly group (n = 373)

Elderly group (n = 59)

Standardized difference

Non-elderly group (n = 100)

Elderly group (n = 50)

Standardized difference

Sex (male/female)

314 / 59

59 / 9

0.016

84 / 16

42 / 8

0.000

Neoadjuvant treatment

 Not performed

149 (40%)

34 (58%)

0.359

53 (53%)

29 (58%)

0.101

 Performed

224 (60%)

25 (42%)

47 (47%)

21 (42%)

Surgical approach

 Open

346 (93%)

52 (88%)

0.158

89 (89%)

45 (90%)

0.033

 Thoracoscopic

27 (7%)

7 (12%)

11 (11%)

5 (10%)

Number of field dissected

 2-field dissection

221 (59%)

49 (83%)

0.528

78 (78%)

40 (80%)

0.049

 3-field dissection

152 (41%)

10 (17%)

22 (22%)

10 (20%)

Tumor size (mm), mean ± SD

35.4 ± 21.6

45.2 ± 23.6

− 0.432

38.3 ± 21.0

44.1 ± 21.6

−0.212

T factor

 pT0/pTis

25 (7%)

2 (3%)

0.351

1 (1%)

0

0.159

 pT1

157 (42%)

29 (49%)

51 (51%)

27 (54%)

 pT2

54 (14%)

7 (12%)

11 (11%)

6 (12%)

 pT3

129 (35%)

21 (36%)

37 (37%)

17 (34%)

 pT4

8 (2%)

0

0

0

N factor

 pN0

172 (46%)

30 (51%)

0.242

45 (45%)

25 (50%)

0.183

 pN1

102 (27%)

17 (29%)

30 (30%)

15 (30%)

 pN2

65 (18%)

10 (17%)

20 (20%)

9 (18%)

 pN3

34 (9%)

2 (3%)

5 (5%)

1 (2%)

TNM stage

 0

17 (4%)

2 (3%)

0.556

1 (1%)

0

0.3000

 I

97 (26%)

23 (39%)

36 (36%)

21 (42%)

 II

108 (29%)

10 (17%)

20 (20%)

9 (18%)

 III

103 (28%)

22 (38%)

36 (36%)

19 (38%)

 IV

48 (13%)

2 (3%)

7 (7%)

1 (2%)

  1. SD, standard deviation