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