Research Article
The Pattern of Cervical Cancer according to HIV Status in Yaoundé, Cameroon
Table 3
Distribution of ICC patients according to FIGO stage, degree of differentiation, and HIV status in bivariate analysis.
| | Variables | HIV status | OR (95% CI) | value | | Total | HIV+ | HIV− | | N = 213 | N = 56 | N = 157 | | n (%) | n (%) |
| | FIGO stages | | Stage I | 57 | 11 (19.30) | 46 (80.7) | 1.04 (0.44–1.63) | 0.969 | | Stage II | 65 | 12 (18.46) | 53 (81.54) | 1a | — | | Stage III | 60 | 25 (41.67) | 35 (58.33) | 2.25 (0.96–3.54) | 0.421 | | Stage IV | 23 | 7 (30, 43) | 16 (69.57) | 1.64 (0.70–2.58) | 0.115 | | Not specified | 8 | 1 (12.5) | 7 (87.5) | | |
| | Degree of differentiation | | Grade I | 50 | 5 (10) | 45 (90) | 1 | — | | Grade II | 62 | 26 (41.94) | 36 (58.06) | 4.19 (3.16–5.21) | 0.041 | | Grade III | 26 | 20 (72.96) | 6 (27.04) | 7.69 (5.80–9.57) | 0.005 | | Not specified | 75 | 5 (6.67) | 70 (93.33) | | |
|
|
aReference category.
|