Skip to main content

Table 5 Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS in paired patients (N = 83)

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
Age
 ≥ 70 vs < 70 1.996 0.218–18.285 0.541 1.825 0.262–12.725 0.544
ISUP
 ≥ 4 vs < 4 1.038 0.416–2.587 0.937 0.993 0.379–2.602 0.989
Nephrectomy
 Yes vs No 0.663 0.126–3.485 0.628
IMDC
 Low Ref. Ref. 0.451 Ref. Ref. 0.794
 Intermediate 1.242 0.443–3.480 0.680 0.704 0.214–2.317 0.564
 High 1.965 0.630–6.134 0.245 0.672 0.195–2.317 0.529
T stage
 ≥ 2b vs < 2b 1.565 0.714–3.432 0.264
ALP (IU/L)       
 ≥ 74 vs < 74 2.477 0.661–9.279 0.178
LDH (IU/L)
 ≥ 175 vs < 175 1.697 0.720–4.000 0.227 3.043 0.998–9.278 0.050
Na (mmol/L)
 ≥ 137 vs < 137 15.965 1.864–136.722 0.011
Full model without TIM-3
 PA 0.713 0.78
Full model with TIM-3(P or M*)
 TIM-3(P or M) 1.277 0.489–3.332 0.617 0.631 0.241–1.652 0.348
 PA 0.715 0.782
Full model with TIM-3(P#)
 TIM-3(P) 0.953 0.413–2.2 0.911 0.594 0.237–1.486 0.265
 PA 0.692 0.783
Full model with TIM-3(M§)
 TIM-3(M) 0.47 0.194–1.138 0.094 0.239 0.087–0.661 0.006
 PA 0.745 0.81
  1. For PFS, the P values for Full model with TIM-3(M), TIM-3(P or M) and TIM-3 (P) compared to that without TIM-3 were < 0.001, 0.126 and 0.098, respectively
  2. For OS, the P values for Full model with TIM-3(M), TIM-3(P or M) and TIM-3 (P) compared to that without TIM-3 were 0.015, 0.211 and 0.206, respectively
  3. *P or M, primary or metastatic tumor; #P, primary tumor; §M, metastatic tumor