Supplementary Table 1. Results from linear mixed effects model comparing healthy controls and RCC patients. Means shown in table are fitted values from models, P refers to the significance of the test of difference between control and RCC and ICCC is the intra-class correlation coefficient. The final columns gives the area under the ROC curve (AUC), a * indicated significance in the test of AUC>0.5 at the 2.5% level (p<0.025).
Peak(m/z) / controls
(Mean) / RCC
(Mean) / P / ICCC / AUC (95% CI)
4802.14 / 2.53 / 3.12 / 0.001 / 0.27 / 0.62* (0.57,0.66)
6675.87 / 0.45 / 0.74 / 0.001 / 0.35 / 0.63* (0.58,0.68)
7341.06 / 0.20 / 0.31 / 0.001 / 0.19 / 0.62* (0.56,0.66)
Supplementary Table 2. Significant associations with CSS in peak detected profile (p<0.001).
Peak m/z / HR / 95% CI / P1528.98 / 0.49 / (0.33, 0.72) / <10-3
2190.47 / 1.55 / (1.27, 1.90) / <10-3
2434.90 / 1.47 / (1.17, 1.86) / 0.001
2675.14 / 1.67 / (1.40, 1.98) / <10-3
2721.87 / 1.64 / (1.36, 1.99) / <10-3
2789.31 / 2.33 / (1.82, 3.00) / <10-3
2808.74 / 1.46 / (1.28, 1.66) / <10-3
2993.60 / 1.64 / (1.30, 2.05) / <10-3
6474.93 / 0.61 / (0.46, 0.80) / <10-3
7341.06 / 1.66 / (1.32, 2.09) / <10-3
7427.82 / 0.60 / (0.47, 0.76) / <10-3
13959.80 / 1.50 / (1.19, 1.90) / 0.001
Supplementary Table 3.Univariate and multivariable prognostic modelling results for all RCC patients with immunoassay-determined SAA concentration for OS using Cox proportional hazards regression). Multivariable results refer to the model considering assay determined SAA. PH P columns refer to the test for evidence of violation of the proportional hazards assumption.
Characteristic / Univariate analysis / Multivariable analysisHR / 95% CI / P / PH P / HR / 95% CI / P / PH P
Peak fragment / 0.45 / (0.21,0.96) / 0.040 / 0.027
SAA (mg/l) / 3.21 / (2.05,5.02) / <10-6 / 0.648 / 1.73 / (0.96,3.14) / 0.069 / 0.730
CRP (mg/l) / 1.94 / (1.54,2.45) / <10-7 / 0.183
Age (yr) / 0.99 / (0.96,1.03) / 0.640 / 0.029 / 0.99 / (0.94,1.03) / 0.520 / 0.023
Sex
M vs F / 1.06 / (0.47,2.40) / 0.890 / 0.323 / 0.88 / (0.34,2.26) / 0.780 / 0.831
pT stage
T2 vs T1 / 1.66 / (0.33,8.21) / 0.540 / 0.331
T3 vs T1 / 5.55 / (2.11,14.6) / 0.001 / 0.843
0.501
ctT stage
T2 vs T1 / 1.55 / (0.46,5.31) / 0.480 / 0.051 / 1.23 / (0.20,7.65) / 0.830 / 0.153
T3/T4 vs T1 / 6.29 / (2.38,16.6) / 0.002 / 0.675 / 2.40 / (0.51,11.2) / 0.270 / 0.478
0.130
N stage
N1 vs N0 / 4.52 / (2.48,8.23) / <10-6 / 0.870
M stage
M1 vs M0 / 8.42 / (3.64,19.5) / <10-6 / 0.830 / 6.14 / (1.38,27.4) / 0.017 / 0.683
TNM stage
III vs I/II / 2.81 / (0.84,9.36) / 0.093 / 0.677
IV vs I/II / 12.07 / (4.42,33.0) / <10-5 / 0.922
0.954
pMax. tumor diameter (cm) / 1.14 / (1.02,1.26) / 0.015 / 0.111
ctMax. tumor diameter (cm) / 1.14 / (1.02,1.28) / 0.027 / 0.157 / 1.06 / (0.87,1.30) / 0.580 / 0.476
Fuhrman grade
G3 vs G1/G2 / 1.90 / (0.53,6.8) / 0.320 / 0.089
G4 vs G1/G2 / 6.52 / (2.11,20.1) / 0.001 / 0.610
0.159
MVI
Yes vs No / 9.50 / (3.63,24.9) / <10-5 / 0.817
Necrosis
Yes vs No / 6.73 / (2.61,17.4) / <10-4 / 0.005
Symptoms
Local vs Asymptomatic / 0.92 / (0.27,3.14) / 0.890 / 0.080 / 0.61 / (0.16,2.30) / 0.460 / 0.363
Systemic vs Asymptomatic / 4.99 / (1.94,12.83) / 0.001 / 0.247 / 0.780 / (0.16,3.77) / 0.760 / 0.442
0.202
0.382
Supplementary Table 4. Univariate and multivariable prognostic modelling results for all RCC patients with immunoassay-determined SAA concentration for DFS using Cox proportional hazards regression). Multivariable results refer to the model considering assay determined SAA. PH P columns refer to the test for evidence of violation of the proportional hazards assumption.
Characteristic / Univariate analysis / Multivariable analysisHR / 95% CI / P / PH P / HR / 95% CI / P / PH P
Peak fragment / 0.94 / (0.39,2.26) / 0.890 / 0.347
SAA (mg/l) / 1.57 / (0.84,2.91) / 0.150 / 0.910 / 1.36 / (0.49,3.76) / 0.553 / 0.356
CRP (mg/l) / 1.77 / (1.31,2.37) / <10-3 / 0.986
Age (yr) / 1.00 / (0.96,1.04) / 0.970 / 0.040 / 0.99 / (0.96,1.04) / 0.787 / 0.018
Sex
M vs F / 2.18 / (0.90,5.3) / 0.086 / 0.154 / 2.24 / (0.85,5.90) / 0.102 / 0.313
pT stage
T2 vs T1 / 1.69 / (0.35,8.17) / 0.510 / 0.604
T3 vs T1 / 6.46 / (2.22,18.76) / <10-3 / 0.791
0.786
ctT stage
T2 vs T1 / 2.67 / (0.89,7.98) / 0.078 / 0.367 / 0.98 / (0.19,5.06) / 0.985 / 0.785
T3/T4 vs T1 / 6.22 / (1.93,20.0) / 0.002 / 0.421 / 2.83 / (0.57,13.92) / 0.202 / 0.434
0.604
N stage
N1 vs N0 / 45.0 / (7.28,27.8) / <10-4 / 0.711
TNM stage
III vs I/II / 2.02 / (2.65,21.3) / <10-3 / 0.800
pMax. tumor diameter (cm) / 1.20 / (1.07,1.35) / 0.002 / 0.611
ctMax. tumor diameter (cm) / 1.22 / (1.06,1.39) / 0.005 / 0.338 / 1.18 / (0.95,1.47) / 0.135 / 0.876
Fuhrman grade
G3 vs G1/G2 / 2.76 / (0.79,9.60) / 0.110 / 0.082
G4 vs G1/G2 / 7.03 / (2.10,23.5) / 0.002 / 0.607
0.295
MVI
Yes vs No / 4.54 / (1.66,12.4) / 0.003 / 0.725
Necrosis
Yes vs No / 3.98 / (1.48,10.7) / 0.006 / 0.260
Symptoms
Local vs Asymptomatic / 1.10 / (0.43,2.84) / 0.86 / 0.449
Systemic vs Asymptomatic / 1.00 / (0.22,4.52) / 1.00 / 0.323
0.533
0.201