Table 5.

Cox’s univariate (HR) and multivariate (RR) analysis of the relationships between MMPs and TIMPs expressions and relapse-free survival

Factor	Number of patients	Event frequency	HR (95%CI)	RR (95%CI)
Stage II vs. Stage III	22/17	3/11	9.75 (2.6–35.9)****	6.3 (1.6–24.3)****
Tumoral centre
MMP-11
MICs(-)vs.(+)	34/5	9/5	5.24 (1.7–16.1)***
TIMP-1
MICs(-)vs.(+)	31/8	8/6	2.75 (1.2–7.9)	3.46 (1.02–11.7)*
TIMP-2
Fibroblast-like c. (-)vs(+)	26/13	6/8	4.13 (1.41–12.04)**
MICs(-)vs.(+)	31/8	7/7	6.60 (2.20–19.79)****
TIMP-3
Tumoral cells (-)vs(+)	5/34	4/10	0.21 (0.06–0.72)*	1.61 (0.03–0.71)*
MICs(-)vs.(+)	13/26	8/6	0.15 (0.04–0.53)***	0.23 (0.06–0.9)*
Invasive front
TIMP-1
Fibroblast-like c. (-)vs.(+)	26/11	6/8	5.01 (1.6–15.5)***	3.59 (0.99–13.06)*

In the multivariate analysis were included, for each MMPs or TIMPs, the classical clinico-pathological parameters (tumour stage, tumours grade, oestrogen and progesterone receptors status) and adjunvant therapy (log rank test).

With regard to the validity of the Cox regression analysis for proportionality, we analysed the normal distribution of value survival function of events by using the Shapiro–Wilk test (P= 0.13).

^*P< 0.05;

^**P< 0.01;

^***P< 0.05;

^****P< 0.001.