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
Back to article page

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us