Connective tissue growth factor expression hints at aggressive nature of colorectal cancer

Table 2 Clinicopathological relevance of connective tissue growth factor mRNA expression in colorectal cancer patients as determined by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction

Characteristics	Normal expression (n = 14)	Overexpression (n = 57)	Odds ratio (95%CI)	P value	Chi2
Age
< 50	2 (9.52)	19 (90.48)	Referent
≥ 50	12 (24.00)	38 (76.00)	3.0 (0.6-29.9)	0.16	1.95
Gender
Male	4 (10.53)	34 (89.47)	Referent
Female	10 (30.30)	23 (69.70)	3.6 (0.9-17.8)	0.037a	4.36
Dwelling
Rural	11 (23.40)	36 (76.60)	Referent
Urban	3 (12.50)	21 (87.50)	0.5 (0.1-2.1)	0.27	1.19
Social class
Low	7 (31.82)	15 (68.18)	Referent
Middle and high	7 (14.29)	42 (85.71)	0.4 (0.09-1.4)	0.08	2.94
Family history
Yes	3 (15.00)	17 (85.00)	Referent
No	11 (21.57)	40 (78.43)	1.5 (0.3-9.7)	0.53	0.39
Smoking status
Yes	4 (10.00)	36 (90.00)	Referent
No	10 (32.26)	21 (67.74)	4.3 (1.04-20.68)	0.019a	5.46
Lifestyle
Active	8 (25.81)	23 (74.19)	Referent
Sedentary	6 (15.00)	34 (85.00)	0.5 (0.1-1.1)	0.25	1.28
Salt tea intake
Yes	13 (20.00)	52 (80.00)	Referent
No	1 (16.67)	5 (83.33)	0.8 (0.02-8.1)	0.844	0.03
Red meat consumption
Yes	13 (22.03)	46 (77.97)	Referent
No	1 (8.33)	11 (91.67)	0.3 (0.01-2.6)	0.37	1.22
Sundried vegetables
Yes	9 (18.75)	39 (81.25)	Referent
No	5 (21.74)	18 (78.26)	1.2 (0.2-4.7)	0.767	0.08
Source of drinking water
Tap water (R)	12 (26.09)	34 (73.91)	Referent
Tap water (L)	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.5 (0.01-5.3)
Others1	1 (5.56)	17 (94.44)	0.4 (0.04-2.4)	0.54	1.21
Pickles
Yes	8 (19.51)	33 (80.49)	Referent
No	6 (20.00)	24 (80.00)	1.03 (0.3-3.9)	1.000	0.002
Pesticide exposure
Yes	7 (21.21)	26 (78.79)	Referent
No	7 (18.42)	31 (81.58)	0.84 (0.219-3.21)	0.8	0.07
Junk food consumption
Yes	0 (0)	5 (100)	Referent
No	14 (21.21)	52 (91.23)	0 (0-3.08)	0.25	1.32
Site of tumor
Colon	7 (19.44)	29 (80.56)	Referent
Rectum	6 (30.00)	14 (70.00)	1.8 (0.4-7.45)
Rectosigmoid	1 (6.67)	14 (93.33)	0.3 (0.01-2.7)	0.23	2.91
Tumor differentiation
Well	8 (44.44)	10 (55.56)
Moderate	5 (10.87)	41 (89.13)	Referent
Poor	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.15 (0.03-0.7)	0.009a	9.35
Invasion depth
T1	5 (62.50)	3 (37.50)
T2	7 (31.82)	15 (68.18)	Referent
T3	2 (6.45)	29 (93.55)	0.3 (0.03-2.0)	0.001a	17.21
T4	0 (0)	10 (100)
T1 + T2	12 (40.00)	18 (60.00)
T3 + T4	2 (4.88)	39 (95.12)	0.08 (0.008-0.4)	0.000a	13.5
TNM staging
I	11 (44.00)	14 (56.00)	Referent
II	2 (8.00)	23 (92.00)	0.1 (0.01-0.6)	0.002a	14.5
III	1 (5.56)	17 (94.44)	0.07 (0.01-0.7)
IV	0 (0)	3 (100.00)		0.040a	4.21
I + II	13 (26.00)	37 (74.00)
III + IV	1 (4.76)	20 (95.24)	0.1 (0.01-1.1)
Tumor grade
1	8 (44.44)	10 (55.56)
2	5 (10.87)	41 (89.13)	Referent
3	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.1 (0.03-0.7)	0.009a	9.35
DUKE stage
A	2 (2.82)	3 (4.23)
B	11 (15.49)	33 (46.48)	Referent
C	1 (1.41)	21 (29.58)	0.5 (0.05-6.8)	0.042a	5.20
Node status
0	13 (25.49)	38 (74.51)	Referent
1 and 2	1 (5.00)	19 (95.00)	0.1 (0.003-1.2)	0.041a	3.81
LVI
Present	8 (14.81)	46 (85.19)	Referent
Absent	6 (35.29)	11 (64.71)	3.1 (0.7-12.7)	0.064	3.42
PNI
Present	0 (0.00)	15 (100)	Referent
Absent	14 (25.00)	42 (75.00)	0 (0-1.08)	0.031a	4.67
TALNR
Present	11 (17.74)	51 (82.26)	Referent
Absent	3 (33.33)	6 (66.67)	2.3 (0.32-12.8)	0.272	1.20
Necrosis seen
Yes	17 (94.44)	1 (5.56)	Referent
No	40 (75.47)	13 (24.53)	2.7 (0.5-27.7)	0.080	3.10
Recurrence
Yes	0 (0)	12 (100)	Referent
No	14 (23.73)	45 (76.27)	0 (0-1.08)	0.060	3.55
Vital status
Alive	13 (19.70)	53 (80.30)	Referent
Death	1 (20.00)	4 (80.00)	1.4 (0.02-1.9)	0.85	0.07

¹Others: Spring, Well, Pond.

^aP < 0.05: Statistical significance.

R: River water through tap; L: Lake water through tap; TALNR: Tumor associated lymph-node response; LVI: Lymphovascular invasion; PNI: Perineural invasion; CI: Confidence interval.