Skip to main content

Table 1 Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses demonstrating the independence of ClockLoss or ClockGain from other clinicopathological features

From: Timing gone awry: distinct tumour suppressive and oncogenic roles of the circadian clock and crosstalk with hypoxia signalling in diverse malignancies

 

Hazard ratio (95% CI)

P-value

All gliomas (ClockLost)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.393 (0.285–0.543)

< 0.0001

 Q3 vs. Q1

0.274 (0.193–0.387)

< 0.0001

 Q4 vs. Q1

0.188 (0.127–0.278)

< 0.0001

All gliomas (ClockGain)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.272 (0.813–1.991)

0.29

 Q3 vs. Q1

2.931 (1.951–4.402)

< 0.0001

 Q4 vs. Q1

3.961 (2.668–5.882)

< 0.0001

Astrocytoma (ClockGain)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.59 (0.242–1.468)

0.26

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.423 (0.65–3.109)

0.38

 Q4 vs. Q1

3.048 (1.514–6.137)

0.0018

Oligodendroglioma (ClockGain)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.947 (0.362–2.474)

0.91

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.184 (0.475–2.951)

0.72

 Q4 vs. Q1

2.764 (1.194–6.400)

0.018

Pan-kidney (ClockLost)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.783 (0.547–1.121)

0.18

 Q3 vs. Q1

0.801 (0.568–1.131)

0.21

 Q4 vs. Q1

0.520 (0.352–0.768)

0.001

 TNM staging

2.095 (1.858–2.361)

< 0.0001

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.783 (0.543–1.129)

0.18

 Q3 vs. Q1

0.764 (0.537–1.089)

0.14

 Q4 vs. Q1

0.569 (0.383–0.847)

0.0055

 TNM staging

2.085 (1.848–2.354)

< 0.0001

Pan-kidney (ClockGain)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.237 (0.838–1.825)

0.28

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.222 (0.828–1.803)

0.31

 Q4 vs. Q1

1.890 (1.311–2.725)

0.00066

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.177 (0.790–1.752)

0.42

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.429 (0.961–2.124)

0.078

 Q4 vs. Q1

1.941 (1.333–2.826)

0.00054

 TNM staging

2.092 (1.857–2.357)

< 0.0001

Clear cell renal cell (ClockLost)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.608 (0.416–0.888)

0.01

 Q3 vs. Q1

0.546 (0.361–0.795)

0.0019

 Q4 vs. Q1

0.292 (0.179–0.474)

< 0.0001

 TNM staging

1.87 (1.641–2.132)

< 0.0001

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.653 (0.447–0.955)

0.027

 Q3 vs. Q1

0.667 (0.448–0.993)

0.046

 Q4 vs. Q1

0.433 (0.265–0.708)

0.00085

 TNM staging

1.798 (1.572–2.058)

< 0.0001

Clear cell renal cell (ClockGain)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.243 (0.799–1.933)

0.33

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.001 (0.640–1.564)

0.99

 Q4 vs. Q1

1.775 (1.177–2.678)

0.0062

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.222 (0.786–1.901)

0.37

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.284 (0.818–2.017)

0.28

 Q4 vs. Q1

1.856 (1.230–2.802)

0.0032

 TNM staging

1.874 (1.642–2.138)

< 0.0001

Bladder (ClockLost)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.088 (0.593–1.999)

0.78

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.478 (0.828–2.640)

0.19

 Q4 vs. Q1

2.081 (1.198–3.614)

0.0093

 TNM staging

1.679 (1.323–2.131)

< 0.0001

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.059 (0.577–1.946)

0.85

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.357 (0.759–2.426)

0.31

 Q4 vs. Q1

1.776 (1.018–3.099)

0.043

 TNM staging

1.609 (1.263–2.050)

1.20E−04

Stomach (ClockLost)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.761 (0.389–1.485)

0.43

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.143 (0.615–2.127)

0.67

 Q4 vs. Q1

2.155 (1.255–3.702)

0.0054

 TNM staging

1.372 (1.067–1.765)

0.038

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

0.731 (0.374–1.428)

0.36

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.133 (0.609–2.107)

0.69

 Q4 vs. Q1

2.070 (1.205–3.557)

0.0084

 TNM staging

1.354 (1.054–1.739)

0.018

Lung (ClockGain)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.633 (0.987–2.699)

0.056

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.604 (0.973–2.644)

0.064

 Q4 vs. Q1

2.023 (1.224–3.343)

0.006

 TNM staging

1.597 (1.364–1.870)

< 0.0001

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.604 (0.971–2.652)

0.065

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.434 (0.868–2.370)

0.16

 Q4 vs. Q1

1.832 (1.108–3.029)

0.018

 TNM staging

1.584 (1.348–1.861)

< 0.0001

Pancreas (ClockGain)

Univariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.791 (0.849–3.779)

0.13

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.602 (0.740–3.470)

0.23

 Q4 vs. Q1

3.034 (1.492–6.168)

0.0022

 TNM staging

1.339 (0.897–1.998)

0.153

 

Multivariate

 Q2 vs. Q1

1.712 (0.803–3.652)

0.16

 Q3 vs. Q1

1.584 (0.731–3.430)

0.24

 Q4 vs. Q1

2.890 (1.399–5.970)

0.0042

 TNM staging

1.143 (0.756–1.728)

0.52

  1. Significant P values are marked in italics. Univariate values for TNM staging were in accordance with our previous reports utilising TCGA datasets [69, 70, 72]
  2. CI confidence interval