Skip to main content

Table 4 Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS in all patients (N = 163)

From: Differential expression of TIM-3 between primary and metastatic sites in renal cell carcinoma

 

Cox’s regression for PFS

Cox’s regression for OS

HR

95% Cl

P value

HR

95% Cl

P value

Gender

 Male vs < female

0.800

0.362–1.769

0.581

0.707

0.288–1.739

0.450

Age

 ≥ 70 vs < 70

1.755

0.341–9.044

0.501

0.698

0.200–2.430

0.572

ISUP

 ≥ 4 vs < 4

1.423

0.632–3.204

0.394

2.214

0.968–5.063

0.060

Nephrectomy

 Yes vs No

0.544

0.190–1.557

0.257

0.273

0.101–0.735

0.010

IMDC

 Low

  

0.956

Ref.

Ref.

0.284

 Intermediate

1.067

0.374–3.040

0.904

0.396

0.123–1.276

0.121

 High

1.186

0.362–3.891

0.778

0.539

0.159–1.832

0.322

T stage

 ≥ T2b vs < T2b

1.512

0.688–3.319

0.303

–

–

–

CHOL (mmol/L)

 ≥ 5 vs < 5

0.517

0.144–1.858

0.312

0.463

0.113–1.903

0.286

HDLC (mmol/L)

 ≥ 5 vs < 5

–

–

–

0.781

0.363–1.681

0.528

LDH (IU/L)

 ≥ 175 vs < 175

1.877

0.918–3.837

0.084

3.004

1.272–7.098

0.012

Na (mmol/L)

 ≥ 137 vs < 137

8.458

1.909–37.468

0.005

18.993

3.629–99.415

0.001

Full model without TIM-3

 PA

0.747

0.781

Full model with TIM-3(P or M*)

 TIM-3

0.669

0.278–1.605

0.367

0.536

0.245–1.172

0.118

 PA

0.73

0.775

Full model with TIM-3(M#)

 TIM-3(M)

0.377

0.162–0.876

0.023

0.351

0.156–0.787

0.011

 PA

0.756

0.811

  1. For PFS, the P values for Full model with TIM-3(M) and TIM-3(P or M) compared to that without TIM-3 were 0.02 and 0.334, respectively
  2. For OS, the P values for Full model with TIM-3(M) and TIM-3(P or M) compared to that without TIM-3 were 0.005 and 0.126, respectively
  3. *P or M, primary or metastatic tumor; #M, metastatic tumor
Back to article page

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us