Hepatoma-derived growth factor expression as a prognostic marker in cervical cancer

Table 1 Correlation of hepatoma-derived growth factor expression levels with clinicopathological factors in uterine cervical cancer patients n (%)

Factor	Category	No. ofpatients	HDGF expression			P value
			Level 0	Level 1	Level 2
		n = 88	n = 19	n = 11	n = 58
Age, yr		51.6 ± 13.8	46.7 ± 15.5	55.6 ± 12.1	52.4 ± 13.2	0.17
Histological differentiation	1: Keratinized SQ	29	2 (7)	2 (7)	25 (86)	0.037
	2: Nonkeratinized SQ	58	17 (29)	9 (16)	32 (55)
	3: Adenosquamous carcinoma	1	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (100)
Lymphatic permeation	1: Absent	53	18 (34)	6 (11)	29 (55)	0.0006
	2: Present	35	1 (3)	5 (14)	29 (83)
Vascular permeation	1: Absent	65	18 (28)	6 (9)	41 (63)	0.019
	2: Present	23	1 (4)	5 (22)	17 (74)
Depth of invasion (pT)	1: T1	41	15 (37)	6 (15)	20 (49)	0.028
	2: T2	43	4 (9)	4 (9)	35 (81)
	3: T3	3	0 (0)	1 (33)	2 (67)
	4: T4	1	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (100)
Lymph node metastasis (pN)	1: Absent	64	12 (19)	9 (14)	36 (56)	0.0004
	2: Present	24	0 (0)	2 (8)	22 (92)
Stage	1: I	43	15 (35)	7 (16)	21 (49)	0.014
	2: II	36	4 (11)	4 (11)	28 (88)
	3: III	5	0 (0)	0 (0)	5 (100)
	4: IV	4	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (100)
Types of surgery	1: Conization	2	2 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0.0001
	2: Total hysterectomy	7	7 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)
	3: Modified radical hysterectomy	7	4 (57)	0 (0)	3 (43)
	4: Radical hysterectomy	72	6 (8)	11 (15)	55 (76)
Salpingo-oophorectomy	1: Not performed	17	12 (71)	2 (12)	3 (18)	0.0001
	2: Performed	71	7 (10)	9 (13)	55 (77)
Pelvic lymph node dissection	1: Not performed	71	14 (20)	9 (13)	48 (68)	0.7
	2: Performed	17	5 (29)	2 (12)	10 (59)
Adjuvant/neoadjuvantchemotherapy	1: Not performed	53	16 (30)	5 (9)	32 (60)	0.03
	2: Performed	35	3 (9)	6 (17)	26 (74)
Adjuvant radiotherapy	1: Not performed	52	16 (31)	9 (17)	27 (52)	0.003
	2: Performed	36	3 (8)	2 (6)	31 (86)

SQ: Squamous cell carcinoma; HDGF: Hepatoma-derived growth factor.