Supplementary Table S1. The REMARK profile: variables, patients, and analyses
Study and marker
Remarks
Markers
m1 = interleukin-6 expression (positive or negative), m2 = interleukin-6-receptor expression (positive or negative)
Future variables
v1 = renal cell carcinoma morphotype, v2 = age at surgery, v3 = gender, v4 = ECOG-PS, v5 = pT stage, v6 = Fuhrman
grade, v7 = tumor size, v8 = coagulative necrosis, v9 = MVI, v10 = sarcomatoid features, v11 = symptomatic
presentation, v12 = rhabdoid differentiation, v13 = surgery, v14 = multifocality*
Outcomes
10-year CSS, 5-year CCSS
Patients
n
Remarks
Assessed for eligibility
465
Disease: Renal cell carcinoma
Patient source: Surgery 2001 to 2004, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University
Sample source: Archived formalin fixed, paraffin embedded specimens available
Excluded†
183
General exclusion criteria: Deficient follow-up, n=51; unreached clinical records, n=11; poor tumor sample
preservation for TMA, n=70; unqualified HE section, n=15; suspicious death (died within 1 months after
surgery), n=3; extensive necrosis (more than 50% or with massive hemorrhage), n=16; inadequate control
staining or ambiguous marker staining, n=12.
Un-expected therapy: Previously treated with cytokine, n=4; merely open biopsy, n=1.
Included
282
Untreated before surgery.
Treatment after surgery: 154 of 202 (76.2%) pT1-2N0M0 patients and 61 of 63 (96.8%) pT3-4N0M0 patients
had open- or laparoscopic- radical nephrectomy, the others had partial nephrectomy, and none received
adjuvant therapy after surgery; 3 bilateral tumor patients (all belong to pT1-2N0M0) had nephron-sparing
surgery. All 17 (100%) pN1 or pM1 patients had cytoreductive nephrectomy, followed by immunotherapy
with IFN-α or IL-2 during first year; among these patients, 7 (41.2%) had targeting agents records, all 5 pN1
patients had lymph node dissection.
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma
188
Central reviewed in blind method, according to 2014 EAU guidelines
Localised
180
pN1 or pM1 patients were considered metastatic RCC, n=8
Statistical analyses
Events
Patients
Variables considered
Results/Remarks
A1: Interaction: markers/variables and
91
282
m1, m2, v1 to v14
Table 2
53
180
m1, m2, v1 to v13
Table 3, Figure 1 (stratified by v1)
53
180
m1, m2, v1 to v13
Table 4 (A reduced model was fitted with variables that had a P<0.05
CSS
A2: Survival analyses: variables and
CCSS
A3: Multivariable analyses:
markers/variables and CCSS
A4: K-M survival analyses: markers
based on the full model)
53
180
m1, m2, v5
Figure 1 (stratified by v5)
53
180
m1, m2, v4 to v8
Figure 2 (v4 to v6 integrated into UISS, v5 to v8 integrated into SSIGN)
and CSS
A5: Models comparison: models and
CCSS
Abbreviation: CSS, cancer-specific survival; CCSS, conditional cancer-specific survival; ECOG-PS, Eastern cooperative Oncology Group performance status;
MVI, microvascular invasion; UISS, The University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System; SSIGN, the mayo stage, size, grade, necrosis score.
*Not considered for survival outcome as the effective values was relatively small.
†The cases that meet several exclusion criteria were counted and recorded only once.