Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 12;9(3):3112–3120. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11258

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 3.70 (1.78-7.68) <0.001 4.12(1.56-10.89) 0.004
 pT3 vs pT1 3.94(2.33-6.67) <0.001 4.44(2.45-8.04) <0.001
 pT4 vs pT1 10.01(3.01-33.29) <0.001 10.81(2.98-39.29) <0.001
Fuhrman grade <0.001 <0.001
 2 vs 1 1.53(0.55-4.27) 0.419 1.15(0.40-3.26) 0.798
 3 vs 1 5.35(1.83-15.60) 0.002 3.72(1.24-11.17) 0.019
 4 vs 1 7.39(1.65-33.08) 0.009 9.10(1.91-43.31) 0.006
Necrosis (present vs absent) 3.30(1.97-5.51) <0.001 2.52(1.44-4.44) 0.001
Tumor size (continuous, cm) 1.19(1.09-1.29) <0.001 0.99(0.88-1.12) 0.858
ECOG PS (≥1 vs 0) 1.303(0.79-2.151) 0.300 - -
ST6GalNAc-1 (high vs low) 2.51(1.56-4.04) <0.001 2.74(1.66-4.52) <0.001
Recurrence-free survival
pT stage <0.001 <0.001
 pT2 vs pT1 4.23(2.09-8.56) <0.001 4.91(1.88-12.82) 0.001
 pT3 vs pT1 3.22(1.88-5.52) <0.001 4.37(2.67-8.06) <0.001
 pT4 vs pT1 17.87(6.10-52.33) <0.001 20.22(6.29-65.02) <0.001
Fuhrman grade <0.001 <0.001
 2 vs 1 1.20(0.47-3.03) 0.704 0.84(0.32-2.18) 0.721
 3 vs 1 3.60(1.34-9.66) 0.011 2.85(1.02-8.00) 0.047
 4 vs 1 5.89(1.41-24.79) 0.015 6.78(1.52-30.23) 0.012
Necrosis (present vs absent) 3.15(1.87-5.31) <0.001 2.47(1.39-4.38) 0.002
Tumor size (continuous, cm) 1.19(1.09-1.29) <0.001 0.99(0.88-1.12) 0.859
ECOG PS (≥1 vs 0) 1.19(0.71-1.99) 0.511 - -
ST6GalNAc-1 (high vs low) 2.61(1.62-4.22) <0.001 2.88(1.73-4.79) <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.