Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for metastasis-free survival (n = 83) (a) and recurrence-free survival (n = 74) (b) in all histological cases
Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
P | HR | 95% CI | P | |
(a) Metastasis-free survival (n = 83) | ||||
Age (<65 vs. ≥65 years) | 0.718 | |||
Gender (male vs. female) | 0.453 | |||
Histological type (ccRCC vs. non-ccRCC) | 0.466 | |||
pT stage (T1/2 vs. T3/4) | <0.001 | 5.814 | 1.391–24.305 | 0.016 |
Fuhrman grade (1, 2 vs. 3, 4) | <0.001 | 0.119 | ||
INF (α vs. β) | <0.001 | |||
Lymphovascular invasion (no vs. yes) | <0.001 | |||
Immunological classification (Group I, II vs. Group III) | 0.001 | 0.449 | 0.243–0.832 | 0.011 |
NLR (<2.4 vs. ≥2.4) | <0.001 | |||
PLR (<1.8 vs. ≥1.8) | <0.001 | |||
Hyponatremia (≥138 vs. <138 mEq/L) | <0.001 | |||
Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (0 vs. 1, 2) | <0.001 | 3.247 | 1.071–9.843 | 0.037 |
(b) Recurrence-free survival (n = 74) | ||||
Age (< 65 vs. ≥65 years) | 0.267 | |||
Gender (male vs. female) | 0.982 | |||
Histological type (ccRCC vs. non-ccRCC) | 0.414 | |||
pT stage (T1/2 vs. T3/4) | <0.001 | 0.915 | ||
Fuhrman grade (1, 2 vs. 3,4) | <0.001 | 0.912 | ||
INF (α vs. β) | <0.001 | |||
Lymphovascular invasion (no vs. yes) | <0.001 | |||
Immunological classification (Group I, II vs. Group III) | 0.041 | 0.475 | 0.238–0.948 | 0.035 |
NLR (<2.4 vs. ≥2.4) | 0.019 | |||
PLR (<1.8 vs. ≥1.8) | 0.009 | 0.922 | ||
Hyponatremia (≥138 vs. <138 mEq/L) | <0.001 | |||
Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (0 vs. 1, 2) | 0.001 |
Bold values were defined as p <0.05
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, ccRCC clear cell renal cell carcinoma, INF infiltration, NLR neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio