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

Table 3 Clinicopathological relevance of connective tissue growth factor protein expression in colorectal cancer patients as determined by Western blot analysis

Characteristics	Normal expression (n = 28)	Overexpression (n = 43)	Odds ratio (95%CI)	P value	Chi2
Age
< 50	6 (28.57)	15 (71.43)	Referent
≥ 50	22 (44.00)	28 (56.00)	1.9 (0.6-7.1)	0.22	1.47
Gender
Male	12 (31.58)	26 (68.42)	Referent
Female	16 (48.48)	17 (51.52)	2.03 (0.7-6.0)	0.15	2.11
Dwelling
Rural	20 (42.55)	27 (57.45)	Referent
Urban	8 (33.33)	16 (66.67)	0.7 (0.21-2.1)	0.45	0.57
Social class
Low	10 (45.45)	12 (54.55)	Referent
Middle and high	18 (36.73)	31 (63.27)	1.4 (0.5-4.5)	0.57	0.48
Family history
Yes	7 (35.00)	13 (65.00)	Referent
No	21 (41.18)	30 (58.82)	0.7 (0.2-2.5)	0.63	0.23
Smoking status
Yes	11 (27.50)	29 (72.50)	Referent
No	17 (54.84)	14 (45.16)	3.2 (1.1-9.7)	0.019a	5.46
Lifestyle
Active	12 (38.71)	19 (61.29)	Referent
Sedentary	16 (40.00)	24 (60.00)	1.05 (0.4-0.1)	0.91	0.01
Salt tea intake
Yes	25 (38.46)	40 (61.54)	Referent
No	3 (50)	3 (50)	1.6 (0.2-12.8)	0.58	0.30
Red meat consumption
Yes	24 (40.68)	35 (59.32)	Referent
No	4 (33.33)	8 (66.67)	0.7 (0.1-3.1)	0.63	0.22
Sundried vegetables
Yes	19 (39.58)	29 (60.42)	Referent
No	9 (39.13)	14 (60.87)	1.0 (0.3-3.0)	0.97	0.01
Source of drinking water
Tap water (R)	20 (43.48)	26 (56.52)	Referent
Tap water (L)	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.21 (0.01-2.3)
Others1	7 (38.89)	11 (61.11)	1.3 (0.3-4.6)	0.34	2.21
Pickles
Yes	16 (39.02)	25 (60.98)	Referent
No	12 (40)	18 (60)	1.04 (0.3-3.03)	0.93	0.01
Pesticide exposure
Yes	15 (45.45)	18 (54.55)	Referent
No	13 (34.21)	25 (65.79)	0.624 (0.2-1.8)	0.33	0.93
Junk food consumption
Yes	0 (0)	5 (100)	Referent
No	28 (42.42)	38 (57.58)	0 (0-1.1)	0.06	3.5
Site of tumor
Colon	12 (33.33)	24 (66.67)	Referent
Rectum	12 (60)	8 (40)	3 (0.84-10.89)
Rectosigmoid	4 (26.67)	11 (73.33)	0.7 (0.13-3.1)	0.077	5.12
Tumor differentiation
Well	14 (77.78)	4 (22.22)	Referent
Moderate	13 (28.26)	33 (71.74)	0.1 (0.02-0.5)
Poor	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.04 (0.01-0.64)	0.000a	15.33
Invasion depth
T1	7 (87.50)	1 (12.50)
T2	13 (59.09)	9 (40.91)	Referent	0.000a	18.61
T3	7 (22.58)	24 (77.42)	0.04 (0.01-0.44)
T4	1 (10)	9 (90)
T1 + T2	20 (66.67)	10 (33.33)
T3 + T4	8 (19.51)	33 (80.49)	0.12 (0.03-0.4)	0.000a	16.12
TNM staging
I	19 (76.00)	6 (24.00)	Referent
II	7 (28.00)	18 (72.00)	0.12 (0.02-0.5)	0.000a	23.3
III	2 (11.11)	16 (88.89)	0.04 (0.003-0.3)
IV	0 (0.00)	3 (100)	0 (0-0.5)
I + II	26 (52.00)	24 (48.00)
III + IV	2 (9.52)	19 (90.48)	0.1 (0.01-0.5)	0.001a	11.2
Tumor grade
1	14 (77.78)	4 (22.22)	Referent
2	13 (28.26)	33 (71.74)	0.1 (0.02-0.5)
3	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.05 (0.01-0.6)	0.000a	15.33
DUKE stage
A	4 (80.00)	1 (20.00)	Referent
B	22 (50.00)	22 (50.00)	4 (0.3-205)
C	2 (9.09)	20 (90.91)	0.02 (0.01-0.5)	0.001a	13.9
Node status
0	26 (50.98)	25 (49.02)	Referent
1 and 2	2 (7.14)	18 (41.86)	0.10 (0.01-0.53)	0.001a	10.10
LVI
Present	17 (31.48)	37 (68.52)	Referent
Absent	11 (64.71)	6 (35.29)	0.2 (0.06-0.90)	0.015a	5.97
PNI
Present	1 (6.67)	14 (93.33)	Referent
Absent	27 (48.21)	29 (51.79)	0.1 (0.01-0.58)	0.003a	8.55
TALNR
Present	25 (40.32)	37 (59.68)	Referent
Absent	3 (33.33)	6 (66.67)	0.7 (0.11-3.9)	0.688	0.16
Necrosis seen
Yes	2 (11.11)	16 (88.89)	Referent
No	26 (49.06)	27 (50.94)	0.2 (0.03-0.76)	0.004a	8.10
Recurrence
Yes	1 (8.33)	11 (91.67)	Referent
No	27 (45.76)	32 (54.24)	0.3 (0.05-1.34)	0.016a	5.85
Vital status
Alive	27 (40.91)	39 (59.09)	Referent
Death	1 (20.00)	4 (80.00)	0.4 (0.007-3.9)	0.36	0.85

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.