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