Skip to main content

Table 6 Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS in targeted agents treated patients (N = 64)

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
ISUP
 ≥ 4 vs < 4 1.082 0.363–3.232 0.887 1.826 0.611–5.456 0.281
Nephrectomy
 Yes vs No 0.081 0.016–0.408 0.002 0.066 0.014–0.299 < 0.001
ECOG
 ≥ 2 vs < 2 1.131 0.382–3.345 0.825 1.566 0.428–5.721 0.498
IMDC
 Low 1 Ref. 0.860 1 Ref. 0.108
 Intermediate 1.195 0.300–4.760 0.800 0.302 0.055–1.646 0.166
 High 1.590 0.283–8.938 0.599 1.525 0.268–8.664 0.634
Time from diagnosis to metastasis
 Synchronous vs Metachronous 0.534 0.186–1.535 0.244
T stage    
 ≥ 2b vs <2b 3.438 0.990–11.937 0.052
ALP (IU/L)
 ≥ 78 vs < 78 1.018 1.003–1.034 0.021
Na (mmol/L)
 < 137 vs ≥137 18.258 1.506–221.386 0.023 0.999 0.997–1.001 0.336
Full model without TIM-3
 PA 0.735 0.842
Full model with TIM-3(P or M*)
 TIM-3(P or M) 0.456 0.147–1.416 0.174 0.755 0.296–1.926 0.556
 PA 0.738 0.844
Full model with TIM-3(M#)
 TIM-3(M) 0.167 0.048–0.586 0.005 0.537 0.226–1.277 0.159
 PA 0.791 0.873
  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 0.006 and 0.141, 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 0.009 and 0.216, respectively
  3. *P or M, primary or metastatic tumor; #M, metastatic tumor
\