Expression of NOS and HIF-1α in human colorectal carcinoma and implication in tumor angiogenesis

Table 1 Relation between expression of iNOS, eNOS, HIF-1α and clinical pathology, n (%)

Pathology	n	iNOS	eNOS	HIF-1α
Histological grade
Well differentiation	6	5 (83.3)b	3 (50)	2 (33.3)
Moderate differentiation	58	51 (87.9)	21 (36.2)	43 (74.1)
Poor differentiation	14	5 (35.7)	2 (14.3)	9 (64.3)
Infiltrating depth
Serous membrane (-)	9	4 (44.4)d	2 (22.2)	3 (33.3)a
Serous membrane (+)	69	57 (82.6)	24 (34.8)	51 (73.9)
Lymph node metastasis
(+)	29	24 (82.8)	11 (37.9)	23 (79.3)
(-)	49	36 (77.9)	15 (33.3)	31 (63.3)
Distant metastasis
(+)	12	11 (91.7)	5 (41.7)	11 (91.7)
(-)	66	50 (75.8)	21 (31.8)	43 (65.2)
Duke’s stage
A, B	45	35 (77.8)	18 (40.0)	27 (60)c
C, D	33	26 (78.8)	8 (24.2)	27 (81.8)

^a: P < 0.05 between serous membrane positive group and negative group;

^c: P < 0.05 between Duke’s stage A&B group and C&D group;

^b: P < 0.01 between different histological grade groups;

^d: P < 0.01 between serous membrane positive group and negative group.