Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors related to RFS of ICC patients in the cohort (n = 322).
ICC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; RFS, time interval from the date of surgery to recurrence; TNM, tumor-node-metastasis; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidential interval; NA, not applicable; NS, not significant. Univariate analysis was performed by Kaplan–Meier method (log-rank test). Multivariate analysis was calculated using the Cox multivariate proportional hazard regression model with stepwise manner.
| RFS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| P | HR | 95% CI | p | |
| Age, years (>51 vs. ≤51) | 0.353 | NA | ||
| Gender (male vs. female) | 0.572 | NA | ||
| Hepatitis history (positive vs. negative) | 0.365 | NA | ||
| CA199, U/ml (>36 vs. ≤36) | 0.033 | NS | ||
| Lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no) | <0.001 | 2.020 | [1.401–2.914] | <0.001 |
| Liver cirrhosis (yes vs. no) | 0.214 | NA | ||
| Tumor size (cm) (>5 vs. ≤5) | 0.011 | NS | ||
| Tumor multiplicity (multiple vs. single) | 0.001 | 1.641 | [1.193–2.257] | 0.002 |
| Tumor encapsulation (none vs. complete) | 0.108 | NA | ||
| Tumor differentiation (poor vs. well) | 0.876 | NA | ||
| Vascular invasion (yes vs. no) | 0.026 | NS | ||
| TNM stage (III + IV vs. I + II) | <0.001 | NS | ||
| CD86+/CD206+ TAMs predictive modela | 0.001 | 0.005 | ||
| II vs. I | 0.024 | 1.477 | [1.042–2.094] | 0.028 |
| III vs. I | 0.108 | NA | ||
| IV vs. I | <0.001 | 1.181 | [1.005–1.387] | 0.043 |
Notes:
Bold values indicate P < 0.05.
a
Patients were divided into four groups based on their staining densities of CD86 and CD206 positive TAMs: group I, high expression of CD86 but low expression of CD206; group II, both low expressions; group III, both high expressions; group IV, low expression of CD86 but high expression of CD206.