Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 14, 2016; 22(38): 8576-8583
Published online Oct 14, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i38.8576
Table 1 Relationship between expression of proteins and clinicopathologic parameters
Variablenc-MYC expressionPCNA expressionTIMP1 expression
Strong (n = 118)Low (n = 211)P value1Strong (n = 78)Low (n = 241)P value1Strong (n = 193)Low (n = 136)P value1
Sex
Male207691364716011988
Female12249730.23631810.32474480.573
Age, median (range)62 (21-82)
Histology grade, differentiation
Well10462855
Moderate1434895361075786
Poor176661100.738401360.84413145< 0.01
Pathologic T stage
T1249155191113
T27830487714137
T374284615595321
T4153511020.84851102< 0.0188650.045
Lymphovascular invasion
Yes1535697371169063
No176621140.796411350.850103730.956
Perineural invasion
Yes127458232958839
No202731290.897461560.61510597< 0.01
Chemotherapy
Yes99435624755841
No230751550.060541760.881135950.985
EMVI
Positive53183513403221
Negative2761001760.752652110.8781611150.782
Location
Below peritoneal reflection120417931897149
At peritoneal reflection4322214392518
Above peritoneal reflection166551110.080431230.05997690.990
Table 2 Multivariate Cox regression analysis of factors predicting survival time of patients without regional lymph node and distant metastasis
VariableHR95%CIP value
Sex (male vs female)1.3120.784-2.1590.354
Pathologic T stage (T3-4 vs T1-2)1.2260.817-2.6570.012
Lymphovascular invasion (yes vs no)1.4130.716-1.9710.241
Perineural invasion (yes vs no)1.5390.992-2.3210.114
EMVI (positive vs negative)3.0712.784-5.754< 0.01
c-MYC expression (low vs strong)1.1381.003-2.4210.032
PCNA expression (strong vs low)2.5821.748-4.3730.003
TIMP1 expression (low vs strong)2.6431.869-5.8210.021
IHC panel (2-3 markers high vs 0-1 marker high)2.1101.631-2.556< 0.01