Copyright
©The Author(s) 2004.
World J Gastroenterol. May 1, 2004; 10(9): 1262-1267
Published online May 1, 2004. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v10.i9.1262
Published online May 1, 2004. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v10.i9.1262
Table 1 No Correlation between EPR-1 protein expression and clinicopathological parameters
Clinico-pathological parameters | Cases | EPR-1 positive cases n (%) | P value |
Age (yr) | |||
<60 | 37 | 21 (56.8) | |
60 | 83 | 56 (67.5) | 0.258 |
Sex | |||
Male | 72 | 43 (59.7) | |
Female | 48 | 34 (70.8) | 0.214 |
Tumor location | |||
Upper 1/3 | 39 | 22 (56.4) | |
Middle 1/3 | 32 | 20 (62.5) | |
Lower 1/3 | 19 | 11 (57.9) | |
More than 2 locaitons | 30 | 24 (80.0) | 0.199 |
Differentation | |||
Well | 60 | 46 (76.7) | |
Poorly | 60 | 31 (51.7) | 0.004 |
Subtypes | |||
Papillary | 30 | 24 (80.0) | |
Tubular | 30 | 22 (73.3) | |
Mucinous | 30 | 13 (43.3) | |
Signet-ring cell | 30 | 18 (60.0) | 0.017 |
Invasion mucosa | |||
No | 66 | 40 (60.6) | |
Yes | 54 | 37 (68.5) | 0.369 |
Lymph node metastasis | |||
No | 70 | 43 (61.4) | |
Yes | 50 | 34 (68.0) | 0.459 |
Table 2 Different expression of EPR-1 between histological subtypes
Subtypes | Primary carcinoma | P value | Normal gastric mucosa | P value | Invasion node | P value | Lymph node metastasis | P value | Smooth muscle cell | P value |
Papillary | 24/30 (80.0) | 14/30 (46.7) | 14/17 (82.4) | 11/13 (84.6) | 17/30 (56.7) | |||||
Tubular | 22/30 (73.3) | 15/30 (50.0) | 12/16 (75.0) | 11/15 (73.3) | 15/30 (50.0) | |||||
Mucinous | 13/30 (43.3) | 12/30 (40.0) | 10/24 (41.7) | 3/10 (30.0) | 14/30 (46.7) | |||||
Signet-ring cell | 18/30 (60.0) | 0.017 | 15/30 (50.0) | 0.849 | 11/28 (39.3) | 0.007 | 9/12 (75.0) | 0.033 | 18/30 (60.0) | 0.72 |
Table 3 Different expression of EPR-1 in the highly-differentiated adenocarcinomas
Differentation | Primary gastric adenocar cinoma | Normal gastric mucosa cells | Invasion node adenocarcinoma | Lymph node metastasis | Smooth muscle cell | P value |
Well | 46/60 (76.7) | 29/60 (48.3) | 26/33 (78.8) | 22/28 (78.6) | 32/60 (53.3) | 0.002 |
Poorly | 31/60 (51.7) | 27/60 (45.0) | 21/52 (40.4) | 12/15 (54.5) | 32/60 (53.3) | 0.594 |
Table 4 Significant expression difference of the AI and PI between EPR-1 positive and negative groups in primary adenocarcinomas
EPR-1 | n | AI (%), mean ± SD | P value | PI (%), mean ± SD | P value |
+ | 77 | 1.25±0.86 | 7.00 ± 3.28 | ||
- | 43 | 1.00±0.80 | 0.024 | 8.53 ± 2.70 | 0.01 |
Table 5 Significant expression difference of the AI and PI be-tween EPR-1 positive and negative groups in lymph node metastasis
EPR-1 | n | AI (%) | P value | PI (%) | P value |
+ | 34 | 0.99 ± 0.58 | 7.65 ± 2.60 | ||
- | 16 | 0.67 ± 0.24 | 0.01 | 9.44 ± 3.05 | 0.037 |
- Citation: Yao XQ, Liu FK, Li JS, Qi XP, Wu B, Yin HL, Ma HH, Shi QL, Zhou XJ. Significance of effector protease receptor-1 expression and its relationship with proliferation and apoptotic index in patients with primary advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2004; 10(9): 1262-1267
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v10/i9/1262.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v10.i9.1262