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

Table 4 Clinicopathological relevance of connective tissue growth factor high and low expression status determined by immunohistochemistry in colorectal cancer patients

Characteristics	Low expression (n = 27)	High expression (n = 44)	Odds ratio (95%CI)	P value	Chi2
Age
< 50	6 (28.57)	15 (71.43)	Referent
≥ 50	21 (42.00)	29 (58.00)	1.8 (0.5-6.6)	0.28	1.13
Gender
Male	11 (28.95)	27 (71.05)	Referent
Female	16 (48.48)	17 (51.52)	2.3 (0.8-6.9)	0.09	2.86
Dwelling
Rural	19 (40.43)	28 (59.57)	Referent
Urban	8 (33.33)	16 (66.67)	0.7 (0.2-2.2)	0.56	0.33
Social class
Low	10 (45.45)	12 (54.55)	Referent
Middle and high	17 (34.69)	32 (65.31)	1.5 (0.5-5.0)	0.38	0.74
Family history
Yes	7 (35.00)	13 (65.00)	Referent
No	20 (39.22)	31 (60.78)	0.8 (0.2-2.7)	0.74	0.10
Smoking status
Yes	10 (25.00)	30 (75.00)	Referent
No	17 (54.84)	14 (45.16)	3.6 (1.2-11.3)	0.010a	6.61
Lifestyle
Active	12 (38.71)	19 (61.29)	Referent
Sedentary	15 (37.50)	25 (62.50)	0.9 (0.3-2.8)	0.92	0.01
Salt tea intake
Yes	24 (36.92)	41 (63.08)	Referent
No	3 (50.00)	3 (50.00)	1.7 (0.2-13.6)	0.53	0.41
Red meat consumption
Yes	23 (38.98)	36 (61.02)	Referent
No	4 (33.33)	8 (66.67)	0.8 (0.15-3.3)	0.71	0.13
Sundried vegetables
Yes	19 (39.58)	29 (60.42)	Referent
No	8 (34.78)	15 (65.22)	0.8 (0.2-2.5)	0.70	0.15
Source of drinking water
Tap water (R)	20 (43.48)	26 (56.52)	Referent
Tap water (L)	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.2 (0.004-2.06)
Others1	6 (33.33)	12 (66.67)	0.6 (0.2-2.3)	0.29	2.41
Pickles
Yes	16 (59.26)	25 (56.82)	Referent
No	11 (40.74)	19 (43.18)	0.9 (0.3-2.6)	0.84	0.04
Pesticide exposure
Yes	15 (55.56)	18 (40.91)	Referent
No	12 (44.44)	26 (59.09)	0.5 (0.2-1.6)	0.23	1.4
Junk food consumption
Yes	0 (0)	5 (100)	Referent
No	27 (40.91)	39 (59.09)	0 (0-1.1)	0.07	3.30
Site of tumor
Colon	11 (30.56)	25 (69.44)	Referent
Rectum	12 (60.00)	8 (40.00)	3.4 (0.9-12.5)
Rectosigmoid	4 (26.67)	11 (73.33)	0.8 (0.1-3.7)	0.06	5.81
Tumor differentiation
Well	14 (77.78)	4 (22.22)	Referent
Moderate	12 (26.09)	34 (73.91)	0.1 (0.02-0.4)
Poor	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.05 (0.01-0.6)	0.000a	16.52
Invasion depth
T1	7 (25.93)	1 (2.27)	Referent
T2	12 (44.44)	10 (22.73)	0.2 (0.003-1.8)	0.001a	17.30
T3	7 (25.93)	24 (54.550)	0.04 (0.01-0.4)
T4	1 (3.70)	9 (20.45)	0.01 (0.01-0.40)
T1 + T2	19 (70.37)	11 (25.00)
T3 + T4	8 (29.63)	33 (75.00)	0.14 (0.04-0.4)	0.000a	14.11
TNM staging
I	18 (66.67)	7 (15.91)	Referent
II	7 (25.93)	18 (40.91)	0.1 (0.03-0.6)	0.000a	20.7
III	2 (7.41)	16 (36.36)	0.05 (0.01-0.3)
IV	0 (0)	3 (6.820)	0 (0-0.6)
I + II	25 (92.59)	25 (56.82)
III + IV	2 (7.41)	19 (43.18)	0.12 (0.01-0.5)	0.001a	10.31
Tumor grade
1	14 (77.78)	4 (22.22)	Referent
2	12 (26.09)	34 (73.91)	0.1 (0.02-0.4)
3	1 (14.29)	6 (85.71)	0.05 (0.01-0.6)	0.000a	16.52
DUKE stage
A	4 (80.00)	1 (20.00)	Referent
B	21 (47.73)	23 (52.27)	0.2 (0.004-2.6)
C	2 (9.09)	20 (90.91)	0.02 (0.014-0.5)	0.001a	13.3
Node status
0	25 (49.02)	26 (50.98)	Referent
1 and 2	2 (10.00)	18 (90.00)	0.1 (0.01-0.6)	0.002a	9.30
LVI
Present	17 (31.48)	37 (68.52)	Referent
Absent	10 (58.82)	7 (41.18)	0.3 (0.1-1.13)	0.043a	4.11
PNI
Present	1 (6.67)	14 (93.33)	Referent
Absent	26 (46.43)	30 (53.57)	0.1 (0.002-0.6)	0.020a	5.42
TALNR
Present	24 (38.71)	38 (61.29)	Referent
Absent	3 (33.33)	6 (66.67)	0.8 (0.1-4.1)	0.75	0.09
Necrosis seen
Yes	24 (47.06)	27 (52.94)	Referent
No	3 (15.00)	17 (85.00)	0.2 (0.03-0.82)	0.012a	6.21
Recurrence
Yes	1 (8.33)	11 (91.67)	Referent
No	26 (44.07)	33 (55.93)	0.11 (0.012-0.9)	0.020a	5.40
Vital status
Alive	26 (39.39)	40 (60.61)	Referent
Death	1 (20.00)	4 (80.00)	0.4 (0.07-4.2)	0.389	0.74

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.