Expression and Clinical Significance of ILF2 in Gastric Cancer

Table 2

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for OS and DFS of GC patients.

Variables	OS		DFS
	RR (95% CI)	value	RR (95% CI)	value
Univariate analysis
Gender (male versus female)	1.856 (0.976–3.529)	0.059	1.579 (0.884–2822)	0.123
Age (years) (>60 versus ≤60)	1.799 (0.944–3.429)	0.074	1.701 (0.948–3.050)	0.075
Location (cardia versus body/antrum)	1.095 (0.589–2.035)	0.774	0.794 (0.448–1.406)	0.429
Size (cm) (>5 versus ≤5)	1.073 (0.560–2.056)	0.831	1.344 (0.748–2.416)	0.323
Histological differentiation (well/moderate versus poor/not)	2.403 (1.173–4.926)	0.017	2.040 (1.089–3.823)	0.026
Depth of invasion (T1/T2 versus T3/T4)	3.135 (1.311–7.495)	0.010	2.741 (1.319–5.695)	0.007
Lymph node metastasis (no versus yes)	1.698 (0.865–3.257)	0.111	1.578 (0.878–2.837)	0.128
TNM stage (I/II versus III/IV)	4.727 (2.218–10.074)	<0.001	2.897 (1.565–5.365)	0.001
ILF2 expression (high versus low)	4.496 (2.045–9.883)	<0.001	3.251 (1.699–6.224)	<0.001
CA19-9 (positive versus negative)	2.254 (1.191–4.264)	0.012	2.223 (1.219–4.054)	0.009
CA125 (positive versus negative)	2.677 (1.399–5.122)	0.003	2.340 (1.268–4.319)	0.007
CEA (positive versus negative)	2.133 (1.117–3.995)	0.021	2.103 (1.105–3.669)	0.022
Multivariate analysis
TNM stage (I/II versus III/IV)	3.462 (1.451–8.260)	0.005	—	—
ILF2 expression (low versus high)	2.996 (1.173–7.654)	0.022	3.464 (1.727–6.947)	<0.001
Depth of invasion (T1/T2 versus T3/T4)	3.849 (1.452–10.206)	0.007	3.669 (1.613–8.343)	0.002
CA19-9 (positive versus negative)	2.911 (1.414–5.994)	0.004	3.210 (1.538–6.701)	0.002
CA125 (positive versus negative)	3.632 (1.695–7.786)	0.001	2.391 (1.193–4.791)	0.014

95% CI: 95% confidence interval; RR: relative risk; TNM: tumor node metastasis; .