Skip to main content

Table 3 Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS in all patients (N = 163)

From: Differential expressions of PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 between primary and metastatic sites in renal cell carcinoma

 

Cox’s regression for PFS

Cox’s regression for OS

HR

95% Cl

P value

PA

HR

95% Cl

P value

PA

Gender

 Male vs female

1.74

0.82–3.69

0.15

0.535

1.31

0.26–6.44

0.75

0.548

ISUP

  ≥ 3 vs < 3

2.21

0.89–5.47

0.09

0.568

12.8

0.72–227.37

0.08

0.595

Nephrectomy

 Yes vs No

0.46

0.12–1.67

0.24

0.561

0.22

0.03–1.73

0.15

0.578

ECOG score

  ≥ 2 vs 1

0.73

0.28–1.91

0.51

0.580

1.62

0.11–25.78

0.73

0.572

IMDC

   

0.656

   

0.647

 Low

Ref.

Ref.

0.04

 

Ref.

Ref.

0.87

 

 Intermediate

1.15

0.48–2.78

0.76

 

1.08

0.11–10.29

0.95

 

 High

3.98

1.14–13.92

0.03

 

0.55

0.02–14.58

0.72

 

Synchronic metastasis

 Yes vs No

0.99

0.51–1.89

0.97

0.618

65.6

2.28–1888.34

0.02

0.674

BMI

    

1.47

0.98–2.21

0.06

0.615

Laboratory parameters

 WBC

1.01

0.99–1.02

0.35

0.513

1.003

0.97–1.04

0.87

0.610

PD-1 positive (P or M)a

1.27

0.62–2.61

0.51

0.554

    

Cox model without PD-1

   

0.683

   

0.747

Cox model with PD-1

   

0.699

    
  1. aP or M, primary or metastatic tumor
  2. Abbreviations: ISUP International Society of Urological Pathology, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, IMDC International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, BMI Body Mass Index
Back to article page

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us