Table 2. Univariate and multivariate cox regression analyses for overall survival and recurrence free survival in localized ccRCC patients.

Variables	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	HR(95% CI)	p*	HR(95% CI)	p*
Overall survival
pT stage		< 0.001		< 0.001
pT2 vs pT1	3.34 (1.59–7.00)	0.001	3.35 (1.58–7.12)	0.002
pT3 vs pT1	3.43 (2.04–5.77)	< 0.001	3.35 (1.95–5.76)	< 0.001
pT4 vs pT1	141.81 (26.42–761.37)	< 0.001	292.79 (51.87–1652.60)	< 0.001
Fuhrman grade		< 0.001		0.003
2 vs 1	1.86 (0.67–5.16)	0.419	1.34 (0.48–3.79)	0.578
3 vs 1	5.35 (1.79–16.01)	0.002	3.86 (1.24–11.98)	0.019
Necrosis (present vs absent)	2.82 (1.61–4.89)	< 0.001	1.75 (0.94–3.25)	0.075
ECOG PS (≥ 1 vs 0)	1.165 (0.70–1.95)	0.300	–	–
IRF5 (high vs low)	2.21 (1.38–3.55)	< 0.001	2.56 (1.51–3.99)	< 0.001
Recurrence-free survival
pT stage		< 0.001		< 0.001
pT2 vs pT1	3.34 (1.60–6.99)	0.001	3.33 (1.57–7.04)	0.002
pT3 vs pT1	3.12 (1.86–5.22)	< 0.001	3.19 (1.86–5.48)	< 0.001
pT4 vs pT1	42.18 (5.22–340.41)	< 0.001	85.04 (10.14–712.85)	< 0.001
Fuhrman grade		< 0.001		0.006
2 vs 1	1.88 (0.68–5.21)	0.224	1.44 (0.51–4.05)	0.492
3 vs 1	5.34 (1.78–15.99)	0.003	3.78 (1.22–11.67)	0.021
Necrosis (present vs absent)	3.12 (1.82–5.35)	< 0.001	2.14 (1.18–3.89)	0.012
ECOG PS (≥ 1 vs 0)	1.04 (0.62–1.76)	0.891	–	–
IRF5 (high vs low)	2.10 (1.30–3.37)	0.002	2.29 (1.42–3.71)	0.001

Abbreviations: ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; ccRCC: clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

*Data obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model; p < 0.05 was regard as statistically significant.