## 3 Results
### Analysis of Radiotherapy Dosimetric Parameters  
For OS, the significant univariate prognostic factors were TAT, EAT (V10), and EAT-REI. The results of multivariate Cox regression for OS showed that only EAT-REI (HR: 1.002; 95% CI: 1.000-1.004; \(p\) = 0.028) (Table 2) was significant. Patients with a smaller EAT-REI had better OS than those with a higher EAT-REI (\(p\) < 0.05). Univariate analysis for PFS revealed that TAT, SAT, EAT (V5, V10, and V20), and EAT-REI were significant, but only EAT-REI was significant, as shown in the multivariate analysis (HR: 1.002; 95% CI: 1.000-1.004; \(p\) = 0.03) (Table 3). The receiver-operating characteristics analysis showed that the area under curve (AUC) values of EAT-REI for OS/PFS were 0.779 (95% CI: 0.623-0.936, \(p\) = 0.006) / 0.715 (95% CI: 0.534-0.897, \(p\) = 0.048) and the cut-off value of REI was 68.8 \(\mathrm{G}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{/}\mathrm{m}\)L, while the sensitivity and 1-specificity (false positive) was 0.826  
Figure 2: Receiver-operating characteristic curves for (**A**) progression-free survival AUC = 0.715 and (**B**) overall survival AUC = 0.779. AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval. and 0.308, respectively. Indicating an informative predictor for Kaplan-Meier curves for 36-month survival according to EAT-REI cut-off value (68.8 \(\mathrm{cGy/mL}\)) were significant for PFS Kaplan-Meier curves (65.9% and 13.0%, \(p\) = 0.001) and OS Kaplan-Meier curves (71.9% and 21.7%, \(p\) = 0.003) (Figure 3). With regard to the radiotherapy parameters evaluated by DVH, the quantities of high-dose and low-dose planning target volumes had no significant impact on clinical outcome. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Univariate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Multivariate**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Characteristics**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**HR (95\% CI)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**\(p\) Value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**HR (95\% CI)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**\(p\) Value**} \\ \hline Age & 1.005 (0.953–1.060) & 0.859 & & \\ BMI (\(\mathrm{kg/m^{2}}\)) & 0.999 (0.907–1.099) & 0.979 & & \\ Albumin (\(\mathrm{g/dL}\)) & 0.772 (0.351–1.702) & 0.522 & & \\ Hb (\(\mathrm{g/dL}\)) & 0.986 (0.733–1.326) & 0.926 & & \\ Lymphocyte (\%) & 0.976 (0.929–1.025) & 0.325 & & \\ Cholesterol (\(\mathrm{mg/dL}\)) & 1.002 (0.987–1.017) & 0.785 & & \\ Triglycerides (\(\mathrm{mg/dL}\)) & 1.000 (0.991–1.008) & 0.931 & & \\ Metabolic diseases & 1.392 (0.470–4.123) & 0.550 & & \\ Cardiac diseases & 0.558 (0.188–1.655) & 0.293 & & \\ Clinical T (T1–2 vs. T3–4) & 0.658 (0.303–1.432) & 0.292 & & \\ Clinical N (N0–1 vs. N2–3) & 1.235 (0.534–2.854) & 0.621 & & \\ cTNM stage (II vs. III) & 0.790 (0.321–1.943) & 0.608 & & \\ Pathological response & 0.561 (0.218–1.445) & 0.231 & & \\ (non-PCR vs. pCR) & 1.001 (1.000–1.003) & 0.125 & & \\ Target volume & 1.000 (1.000–1.001) & 0.639 & & \\ Dose-volume of EAT 1  & 0.88 (0.952–1.026) & 0.529 \\ V20 & 0.960 (0.917–1.005) & 0.081 & & \\ V30 & 0.964 (0.904–1.029) & 0.269 & & \\ V40 & 0.887 (0.746–1.055) & 0.177 & & \\ REI of EAT (EAT-REI) & 1.002 (1.001–1.004) & 0.002 & 1.002 (1.000–1.004) & 0.028 \\ TAT volume (mL) & 0.999 (0.999–1.003) & 0.049 & 1.000 (0.999–1.000) & 0.322 \\ TAT mean dose (Gy) & 1.001 (0.999–1.000) & 0.294 & & \\ SAT volume (mL) & 0.999 (0.999–1.000) & 0.062 & & \\ SAT mean dose (Gy) & 1.001 (0.998–1.003) & 0.501 & & \\ VAT volume (mL) & 0.995 (0.991–1.000) & 0.054 & & \\ VAT mean dose (Gy) & 1.000 (1.000–1.001) & 0.472 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model for overall survival. Figure 3: [PERSON] estimates of the 3-year (**A**) progression-free survival \(p\) = 0.001 and (**B**) overall survival \(p\) = 0.003 according to EAT-REI cut-off value (68.8 cGy/mL).