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

BMC Cancer

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

	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

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
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
*P or M, primary or metastatic tumor; ^#M, metastatic tumor

ISSN: 1471-2407