Table 5.

Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS in paired patients (N = 83)

	Cox’s regression for PFS			Cox’s regression for OS
	HR	95% Cl	P value	HR	95% Cl	P value
Age
≥ 70 vs < 70	1.996	0.218–18.285	0.541	1.825	0.262–12.725	0.544
ISUP
≥ 4 vs < 4	1.038	0.416–2.587	0.937	0.993	0.379–2.602	0.989
Nephrectomy
Yes vs No	–	–	–	0.663	0.126–3.485	0.628
IMDC
Low	Ref.	Ref.	0.451	Ref.	Ref.	0.794
Intermediate	1.242	0.443–3.480	0.680	0.704	0.214–2.317	0.564
High	1.965	0.630–6.134	0.245	0.672	0.195–2.317	0.529
T stage
≥ 2b vs < 2b	1.565	0.714–3.432	0.264	–	–	–
ALP (IU/L)
≥ 74 vs < 74	–	–	–	2.477	0.661–9.279	0.178
LDH (IU/L)
≥ 175 vs < 175	1.697	0.720–4.000	0.227	3.043	0.998–9.278	0.050
Na (mmol/L)
≥ 137 vs < 137	–	–	–	15.965	1.864–136.722	0.011
Full model without TIM-3
PA	0.713			0.78
Full model with TIM-3(P or M*)
TIM-3(P or M)	1.277	0.489–3.332	0.617	0.631	0.241–1.652	0.348
PA	0.715			0.782
Full model with TIM-3(P#)
TIM-3(P)	0.953	0.413–2.2	0.911	0.594	0.237–1.486	0.265
PA	0.692			0.783
Full model with TIM-3(M§)
TIM-3(M)	0.47	0.194–1.138	0.094	0.239	0.087–0.661	0.006
PA	0.745			0.81

For PFS, the P values for Full model with TIM-3(M), TIM-3(P or M) and TIM-3 (P) compared to that without TIM-3 were < 0.001, 0.126 and 0.098, respectively

For OS, the P values for Full model with TIM-3(M), TIM-3(P or M) and TIM-3 (P) compared to that without TIM-3 were 0.015, 0.211 and 0.206, respectively

*P or M, primary or metastatic tumor; ^#P, primary tumor; ^§M, metastatic tumor