Table 1.
Characteristics | PC | HC | p a | OR (95% CI) b | p c |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample Size, n (%) | (n = 55) | (n = 280) | |||
Sex | |||||
Male | 27 (49.1%) | 134 (47.9%) | 1.00 | Ref | |
Female | 28 (50.9%) | 146 (52.1%) | 1.04 (0.58, 1.85) | 0.91 | |
Age, years | 63.0 (54.5–67.5) | 62.0 (56.0–66.0) | 0.74 | ||
<60 | 23 (41.8%) | 125 (44.6%) | 1.00 | Ref | |
≥60 | 32 (58.2%) | 155 (55.4%) | 0.97 (0.54, 1.74) | 0.92 | |
Education level | |||||
<Middle school | 8 (15.1%) | 7 (2.50%) | <0.0001 | Ref | |
Middle–high school | 31 (58.5%) | 131 (46.8%) | 0.21 (0.07, 0.61) | 0.005 | |
≥College | 14 (26.4%) | 142 (50.7%) | 0.09 (0.03, 0.27) | <0.0001 | |
BMI, kg/m2 | 22.9 (21.1–24.6) | 24.2 (22.3–26.4) | 0.0002 | ||
<23.0 | 28 (50.0%) | 90 (32.1%) | 0.005 | Ref | |
23.0–24.9 | 17 (30.9%) | 78 (27.9%) | 1.43 (0.73, 2.80) | 0.30 | |
≥25.0 | 10 (18.2%) | 112 (40.0%) | 0.41 (0.18, 0.94) | 0.04 | |
Smoking | |||||
Never | 26 (47.3%) | 158 (56.4%) | 0.39 | Ref | |
Ex | 23 (41.8%) | 91 (32.5%) | 1.54 (0.83, 2.85) | 0.17 | |
Current | 6 (10.9%) | 31 (11.1%) | 1.18 (0.45, 3.10) | 0.74 | |
Alcohol drinking | |||||
Never | 17 (30.9%) | 70 (25.0%) | <0.0001 | Ref | |
Ex | 18 (32.7%) | 30 (10.7%) | 2.47 (1.12, 5.44) | 0.02 | |
Current | 20 (36.4%) | 180 (64.3%) | 0.46 (0.23, 0.92) | 0.03 | |
FBG, mg/dL | 127.5 (107.3–153.5) | 99.0 (92.0–111.0) | <0.0001 | ||
<126 | 26 (48.1%) | 253 (90.7%) | <0.0001 | Ref | |
≥126 | 28 (51.9%) | 26 (9.32%) | 10.1 (5.21, 19.7) | <0.0001 | |
AJCC staging | |||||
Unknown | 8 (14.5%) | ||||
1 | 4 (7.30%) | ||||
2 | 7 (12.7%) | ||||
3 | 9 (16.4%) | ||||
4 | 27 (49.1%) |
Data are presented as the median and interquartile range (Q1–Q3) for continuous variables and n (%) for categorical variables. a p-Values were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables between PCs and HCs. b OR and 95% CI for variables were analyzed using univariate logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between PCs and HCs. c p-Values were calculated using a univariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between PCs and HCs. Educational level data was missing for two patients. FBG levels were missing for one participant each in the PC and HC groups, respectively. Abbreviations: PC, pancreatic cancer; HC, healthy control; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ref, reference value; BMI, body mass index; FBG, fasting blood glucose; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer.