Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 7, 2022; 28(5): 547-569
Published online Feb 7, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i5.547
Published online Feb 7, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i5.547
Table 1 Clinicoepidemological and clinicopathological parameters of study population (n = 71)
Characteristics | n (%) |
Age in years | |
< 50 | 21 (29.58) |
≥ 50 | 50 (70.42) |
Gender | |
Male | 38 (53.52) |
Female | 33 (46.48) |
Dwelling | |
Rural | 47 (66.20) |
Urban | 24 (33.80) |
Social class | 22 (30.99) |
Low | |
Middle and high | 49 (69.01) |
Family history | |
Yes | 20 (28.17) |
No | 51 (71.83) |
Smoking status | |
Yes | 40 (56.34) |
No | 31(43.66) |
Lifestyle | |
Active | 31 (43.66) |
Sedentary | 40 (56.34) |
Salt tea intake | |
Yes | 65 (91.55) |
No | 06 (8.45) |
Red meat consumption | |
Yes | 59 (83.10) |
No | 12 (16.90) |
Sundried vegetables | |
Yes | 48 (67.61) |
No | 23 (32.39) |
Source of drinking water | |
Tap water (R) | 46 (64.79) |
Tap water (L) | 07 (9.86) |
Others1 | 18 (25.35) |
Pickles | |
Yes | 41 (57.75) |
No | 30 (42.25) |
Pesticide exposure | |
Yes | 33 (46.48) |
No | 38 (53.52) |
Junk food consumption | |
Yes | 05 (7.04) |
No | 66 (92.96) |
Site of tumor | |
Colon | 36 (50.70) |
Rectum | 20 (28.17) |
Rectosigmoid | 15 (21.13) |
Tumor differentiation | |
Well | 18 (25.35) |
Moderate | 46 (64.79) |
Poor | 07 (9.86) |
Invasion depth | |
T1 | 08 (11.27) |
T2 | 22 (30.99) |
T3 | 31 (43.66) |
T4 | 10 (14.08) |
T1 + T2 | 30 (42.25) |
T3 + T4 | 41 (57.75) |
TNM staging | |
I | 25 (35.21) |
II | 25 (35.21) |
III | 18 (25.35) |
IV | 03 (4.22) |
I + II | 50 (70.42) |
III + IV | 21 (29.58) |
Tumor grade | |
1 | 18 (25.35) |
2 | 46 (64.79) |
3 | 07 (9.86) |
DUKE stage | |
A | 05 (7.04) |
B | 44 (61.97) |
C | 22 (30.99) |
Node status | |
0 | 51 (71.83) |
1 and 2 | 20 (28.17) |
LVI | |
Present | 54 (76.06) |
Absent | 17 (23.94) |
PNI | |
Present | 15 (21.12) |
Absent | 56 (78.87) |
TALNR | |
Present | 62 (87.32) |
Absent | 09 (12.68) |
Necrosis seen | |
Yes | 18 (25.35) |
No | 53 (74.65) |
Recurrence | |
Yes | 12 (16.90) |
No | 59 (83.10) |
Vital status | |
Alive | 66 (92.96) |
Dead | 05 (7.04) |
Table 2 Clinicopathological relevance of connective tissue growth factor mRNA expression in colorectal cancer patients as determined by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction
Characteristics | Normal expression (n = 14) | Overexpression (n = 57) | Odds ratio (95%CI) | P value | Chi2 |
Age | |||||
< 50 | 2 (9.52) | 19 (90.48) | Referent | ||
≥ 50 | 12 (24.00) | 38 (76.00) | 3.0 (0.6-29.9) | 0.16 | 1.95 |
Gender | |||||
Male | 4 (10.53) | 34 (89.47) | Referent | ||
Female | 10 (30.30) | 23 (69.70) | 3.6 (0.9-17.8) | 0.037a | 4.36 |
Dwelling | |||||
Rural | 11 (23.40) | 36 (76.60) | Referent | ||
Urban | 3 (12.50) | 21 (87.50) | 0.5 (0.1-2.1) | 0.27 | 1.19 |
Social class | |||||
Low | 7 (31.82) | 15 (68.18) | Referent | ||
Middle and high | 7 (14.29) | 42 (85.71) | 0.4 (0.09-1.4) | 0.08 | 2.94 |
Family history | |||||
Yes | 3 (15.00) | 17 (85.00) | Referent | ||
No | 11 (21.57) | 40 (78.43) | 1.5 (0.3-9.7) | 0.53 | 0.39 |
Smoking status | |||||
Yes | 4 (10.00) | 36 (90.00) | Referent | ||
No | 10 (32.26) | 21 (67.74) | 4.3 (1.04-20.68) | 0.019a | 5.46 |
Lifestyle | |||||
Active | 8 (25.81) | 23 (74.19) | Referent | ||
Sedentary | 6 (15.00) | 34 (85.00) | 0.5 (0.1-1.1) | 0.25 | 1.28 |
Salt tea intake | |||||
Yes | 13 (20.00) | 52 (80.00) | Referent | ||
No | 1 (16.67) | 5 (83.33) | 0.8 (0.02-8.1) | 0.844 | 0.03 |
Red meat consumption | |||||
Yes | 13 (22.03) | 46 (77.97) | Referent | ||
No | 1 (8.33) | 11 (91.67) | 0.3 (0.01-2.6) | 0.37 | 1.22 |
Sundried vegetables | |||||
Yes | 9 (18.75) | 39 (81.25) | Referent | ||
No | 5 (21.74) | 18 (78.26) | 1.2 (0.2-4.7) | 0.767 | 0.08 |
Source of drinking water | |||||
Tap water (R) | 12 (26.09) | 34 (73.91) | Referent | ||
Tap water (L) | 1 (14.29) | 6 (85.71) | 0.5 (0.01-5.3) | ||
Others1 | 1 (5.56) | 17 (94.44) | 0.4 (0.04-2.4) | 0.54 | 1.21 |
Pickles | |||||
Yes | 8 (19.51) | 33 (80.49) | Referent | ||
No | 6 (20.00) | 24 (80.00) | 1.03 (0.3-3.9) | 1.000 | 0.002 |
Pesticide exposure | |||||
Yes | 7 (21.21) | 26 (78.79) | Referent | ||
No | 7 (18.42) | 31 (81.58) | 0.84 (0.219-3.21) | 0.8 | 0.07 |
Junk food consumption | |||||
Yes | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | Referent | ||
No | 14 (21.21) | 52 (91.23) | 0 (0-3.08) | 0.25 | 1.32 |
Site of tumor | |||||
Colon | 7 (19.44) | 29 (80.56) | Referent | ||
Rectum | 6 (30.00) | 14 (70.00) | 1.8 (0.4-7.45) | ||
Rectosigmoid | 1 (6.67) | 14 (93.33) | 0.3 (0.01-2.7) | 0.23 | 2.91 |
Tumor differentiation | |||||
Well | 8 (44.44) | 10 (55.56) | |||
Moderate | 5 (10.87) | 41 (89.13) | Referent | ||
Poor | 1 (14.29) | 6 (85.71) | 0.15 (0.03-0.7) | 0.009a | 9.35 |
Invasion depth | |||||
T1 | 5 (62.50) | 3 (37.50) | |||
T2 | 7 (31.82) | 15 (68.18) | Referent | ||
T3 | 2 (6.45) | 29 (93.55) | 0.3 (0.03-2.0) | 0.001a | 17.21 |
T4 | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | |||
T1 + T2 | 12 (40.00) | 18 (60.00) | |||
T3 + T4 | 2 (4.88) | 39 (95.12) | 0.08 (0.008-0.4) | 0.000a | 13.5 |
TNM staging | |||||
I | 11 (44.00) | 14 (56.00) | Referent | ||
II | 2 (8.00) | 23 (92.00) | 0.1 (0.01-0.6) | 0.002a | 14.5 |
III | 1 (5.56) | 17 (94.44) | 0.07 (0.01-0.7) | ||
IV | 0 (0) | 3 (100.00) | 0.040a | 4.21 | |
I + II | 13 (26.00) | 37 (74.00) | |||
III + IV | 1 (4.76) | 20 (95.24) | 0.1 (0.01-1.1) | ||
Tumor grade | |||||
1 | 8 (44.44) | 10 (55.56) | |||
2 | 5 (10.87) | 41 (89.13) | Referent | ||
3 | 1 (14.29) | 6 (85.71) | 0.1 (0.03-0.7) | 0.009a | 9.35 |
DUKE stage | |||||
A | 2 (2.82) | 3 (4.23) | |||
B | 11 (15.49) | 33 (46.48) | Referent | ||
C | 1 (1.41) | 21 (29.58) | 0.5 (0.05-6.8) | 0.042a | 5.20 |
Node status | |||||
0 | 13 (25.49) | 38 (74.51) | Referent | ||
1 and 2 | 1 (5.00) | 19 (95.00) | 0.1 (0.003-1.2) | 0.041a | 3.81 |
LVI | |||||
Present | 8 (14.81) | 46 (85.19) | Referent | ||
Absent | 6 (35.29) | 11 (64.71) | 3.1 (0.7-12.7) | 0.064 | 3.42 |
PNI | |||||
Present | 0 (0.00) | 15 (100) | Referent | ||
Absent | 14 (25.00) | 42 (75.00) | 0 (0-1.08) | 0.031a | 4.67 |
TALNR | |||||
Present | 11 (17.74) | 51 (82.26) | Referent | ||
Absent | 3 (33.33) | 6 (66.67) | 2.3 (0.32-12.8) | 0.272 | 1.20 |
Necrosis seen | |||||
Yes | 17 (94.44) | 1 (5.56) | Referent | ||
No | 40 (75.47) | 13 (24.53) | 2.7 (0.5-27.7) | 0.080 | 3.10 |
Recurrence | |||||
Yes | 0 (0) | 12 (100) | Referent | ||
No | 14 (23.73) | 45 (76.27) | 0 (0-1.08) | 0.060 | 3.55 |
Vital status | |||||
Alive | 13 (19.70) | 53 (80.30) | Referent | ||
Death | 1 (20.00) | 4 (80.00) | 1.4 (0.02-1.9) | 0.85 | 0.07 |
Table 3 Clinicopathological relevance of connective tissue growth factor protein expression in colorectal cancer patients as determined by Western blot analysis
Characteristics | Normal expression (n = 28) | Overexpression (n = 43) | Odds ratio (95%CI) | P value | Chi2 |
Age | |||||
< 50 | 6 (28.57) | 15 (71.43) | Referent | ||
≥ 50 | 22 (44.00) | 28 (56.00) | 1.9 (0.6-7.1) | 0.22 | 1.47 |
Gender | |||||
Male | 12 (31.58) | 26 (68.42) | Referent | ||
Female | 16 (48.48) | 17 (51.52) | 2.03 (0.7-6.0) | 0.15 | 2.11 |
Dwelling | |||||
Rural | 20 (42.55) | 27 (57.45) | Referent | ||
Urban | 8 (33.33) | 16 (66.67) | 0.7 (0.21-2.1) | 0.45 | 0.57 |
Social class | |||||
Low | 10 (45.45) | 12 (54.55) | Referent | ||
Middle and high | 18 (36.73) | 31 (63.27) | 1.4 (0.5-4.5) | 0.57 | 0.48 |
Family history | |||||
Yes | 7 (35.00) | 13 (65.00) | Referent | ||
No | 21 (41.18) | 30 (58.82) | 0.7 (0.2-2.5) | 0.63 | 0.23 |
Smoking status | |||||
Yes | 11 (27.50) | 29 (72.50) | Referent | ||
No | 17 (54.84) | 14 (45.16) | 3.2 (1.1-9.7) | 0.019a | 5.46 |
Lifestyle | |||||
Active | 12 (38.71) | 19 (61.29) | Referent | ||
Sedentary | 16 (40.00) | 24 (60.00) | 1.05 (0.4-0.1) | 0.91 | 0.01 |
Salt tea intake | |||||
Yes | 25 (38.46) | 40 (61.54) | Referent | ||
No | 3 (50) | 3 (50) | 1.6 (0.2-12.8) | 0.58 | 0.30 |
Red meat consumption | |||||
Yes | 24 (40.68) | 35 (59.32) | Referent | ||
No | 4 (33.33) | 8 (66.67) | 0.7 (0.1-3.1) | 0.63 | 0.22 |
Sundried vegetables | |||||
Yes | 19 (39.58) | 29 (60.42) | Referent | ||
No | 9 (39.13) | 14 (60.87) | 1.0 (0.3-3.0) | 0.97 | 0.01 |
Source of drinking water | |||||
Tap water (R) | 20 (43.48) | 26 (56.52) | Referent | ||
Tap water (L) | 1 (14.29) | 6 (85.71) | 0.21 (0.01-2.3) | ||
Others1 | 7 (38.89) | 11 (61.11) | 1.3 (0.3-4.6) | 0.34 | 2.21 |
Pickles | |||||
Yes | 16 (39.02) | 25 (60.98) | Referent | ||
No | 12 (40) | 18 (60) | 1.04 (0.3-3.03) | 0.93 | 0.01 |
Pesticide exposure | |||||
Yes | 15 (45.45) | 18 (54.55) | Referent | ||
No | 13 (34.21) | 25 (65.79) | 0.624 (0.2-1.8) | 0.33 | 0.93 |
Junk food consumption | |||||
Yes | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | Referent | ||
No | 28 (42.42) | 38 (57.58) | 0 (0-1.1) | 0.06 | 3.5 |
Site of tumor | |||||
Colon | 12 (33.33) | 24 (66.67) | Referent | ||
Rectum | 12 (60) | 8 (40) | 3 (0.84-10.89) | ||
Rectosigmoid | 4 (26.67) | 11 (73.33) | 0.7 (0.13-3.1) | 0.077 | 5.12 |
Tumor differentiation | |||||
Well | 14 (77.78) | 4 (22.22) | Referent | ||
Moderate | 13 (28.26) | 33 (71.74) | 0.1 (0.02-0.5) | ||
Poor | 1 (14.29) | 6 (85.71) | 0.04 (0.01-0.64) | 0.000a | 15.33 |
Invasion depth | |||||
T1 | 7 (87.50) | 1 (12.50) | |||
T2 | 13 (59.09) | 9 (40.91) | Referent | 0.000a | 18.61 |
T3 | 7 (22.58) | 24 (77.42) | 0.04 (0.01-0.44) | ||
T4 | 1 (10) | 9 (90) | |||
T1 + T2 | 20 (66.67) | 10 (33.33) | |||
T3 + T4 | 8 (19.51) | 33 (80.49) | 0.12 (0.03-0.4) | 0.000a | 16.12 |
TNM staging | |||||
I | 19 (76.00) | 6 (24.00) | Referent | ||
II | 7 (28.00) | 18 (72.00) | 0.12 (0.02-0.5) | 0.000a | 23.3 |
III | 2 (11.11) | 16 (88.89) | 0.04 (0.003-0.3) | ||
IV | 0 (0.00) | 3 (100) | 0 (0-0.5) | ||
I + II | 26 (52.00) | 24 (48.00) | |||
III + IV | 2 (9.52) | 19 (90.48) | 0.1 (0.01-0.5) | 0.001a | 11.2 |
Tumor grade | |||||
1 | 14 (77.78) | 4 (22.22) | Referent | ||
2 | 13 (28.26) | 33 (71.74) | 0.1 (0.02-0.5) | ||
3 | 1 (14.29) | 6 (85.71) | 0.05 (0.01-0.6) | 0.000a | 15.33 |
DUKE stage | |||||
A | 4 (80.00) | 1 (20.00) | Referent | ||
B | 22 (50.00) | 22 (50.00) | 4 (0.3-205) | ||
C | 2 (9.09) | 20 (90.91) | 0.02 (0.01-0.5) | 0.001a | 13.9 |
Node status | |||||
0 | 26 (50.98) | 25 (49.02) | Referent | ||
1 and 2 | 2 (7.14) | 18 (41.86) | 0.10 (0.01-0.53) | 0.001a | 10.10 |
LVI | |||||
Present | 17 (31.48) | 37 (68.52) | Referent | ||
Absent | 11 (64.71) | 6 (35.29) | 0.2 (0.06-0.90) | 0.015a | 5.97 |
PNI | |||||
Present | 1 (6.67) | 14 (93.33) | Referent | ||
Absent | 27 (48.21) | 29 (51.79) | 0.1 (0.01-0.58) | 0.003a | 8.55 |
TALNR | |||||
Present | 25 (40.32) | 37 (59.68) | Referent | ||
Absent | 3 (33.33) | 6 (66.67) | 0.7 (0.11-3.9) | 0.688 | 0.16 |
Necrosis seen | |||||
Yes | 2 (11.11) | 16 (88.89) | Referent | ||
No | 26 (49.06) | 27 (50.94) | 0.2 (0.03-0.76) | 0.004a | 8.10 |
Recurrence | |||||
Yes | 1 (8.33) | 11 (91.67) | Referent | ||
No | 27 (45.76) | 32 (54.24) | 0.3 (0.05-1.34) | 0.016a | 5.85 |
Vital status | |||||
Alive | 27 (40.91) | 39 (59.09) | Referent | ||
Death | 1 (20.00) | 4 (80.00) | 0.4 (0.007-3.9) | 0.36 | 0.85 |
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 |
Table 5 Predictors for recurrence or mortality of colorectal cancer using extended cox-regression analysis model
Characteristics | Disease-free survival | Overall survival | ||||
HR | 95%CI | P value | HR | 95%CI | P value | |
Age | 1.66 | 0.4-6.4 | 0.45 | 1.03 | 0.9-1.1 | 0.32 |
Tumor differentiation | 1.13 | 0.5-2.7 | 0.79 | 3.1 | 0.7-14.4 | 0.15 |
Tumor grade | 1.12 | 0.4- 2.7 | 0.79 | 3.1 | 0.7-14.4 | 0.15 |
Depth invasion | 1.6 | 0.8-3.2 | 0.18 | 1.91 | 0.6-5.7 | 0.30 |
TNM stage | 2.8 | 1.38-5.97 | 0.005a | 3.7 | 1.1-12.7 | 0.043a |
Duke stage | 9.6 | 2.3-40.5 | 0.002a | 3.36 | 0.6-18.3 | 0.161 |
Node status | 0.08 | 0.02-0.37 | 0.001a | 0.25 | 0.04-1.5 | 0.139 |
Necrosis | 0.26 | 0.1-0.82 | 0.022a | 1.30 | 0.14-11.6 | 0.811 |
LVI | 0.25 | 0.05-1.2 | 0.090 | 1.16 | 3.25e-17 | 0.08 |
PNI | 0.47 | 0.14-1.6 | 0.230 | 0.16 | 0.02-0.98 | 0.041a |
CTGF expression | 0.13 | 0.01-1.06 | 0.013a | 0.39 | 0.04-3.5 | 0.33 |
- Citation: Bhat IP, Rather TB, Maqbool I, Rashid G, Akhtar K, Bhat GA, Parray FQ, Syed B, Khan IY, Kazi M, Hussain MD, Syed M. Connective tissue growth factor expression hints at aggressive nature of colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(5): 547-569
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i5/547.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i5.547