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
\