Table 2.

Comparison of Ezrin-IR, Proliferation (MIB-1-IR), and Apoptosis (TUNEL)

Correlation	P (chi-square)	Contingency coeff.
A: In astrocytomas (WHO II, III) and glioblastoma (WHO IV)
With malignancy
Ezrin-IR*	<0.0001	86%
MIB-1-IR (%)	<0.0001	80%
TUNEL (%)	<0.001	65%
With ezrin-IR
MIB-1-IR (%)	<0.05	49%
TUNEL (%)	<0.01	45%
B: In astrocytomas (WHO II, III)
With malignancy
Ezrin-IR	<0.0001	82%
MIB-1-IR (%)	<0.05	53%
TUNEL (%)	n.s.c.
With ezrin-IR
MIB-1-IR (%)	n.s.c.
TUNEL (%)	n.s.c.
C: In astrocytomas (WHO III) and glioblastoma (WHO IV)
With malignancy
Ezrin-IR	<0.0001	76%
MIB-1-IR (%)	<0.001	84%
TUNEL (%)	<0.01	64%
With ezrin-IR
MIB-1-IR (%)	n.s.c.
TUNEL (%)	n.s.c.
D: Differentiation between astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas
Astro II versus oligo II	<0.0001	92%
Astro III versus oligo III	<0.0001	96%
Astro (II+ III) versus oligo (II+ III)	<0.0001	92%
Predictive value for astro (II+ III)		0.93%
Predictive value for oligo (II+ III)		0.85%

A–C comparison of ezrin-IR*, proliferation (MIB-1 IR) and apoptosis (TUNEL):

A, in astrocytomoas WHO grades II, III, and IV; B, in astrocytomas WHO grades II and III; C, in astrocytomas WHO grades III and IV; D, Correlation between ezrin-IR* and tumor type.

* Ezrin-IR: semiquantitative scoring system, detailed description in Materials and Methods section Figure 3 ▶ . Parametric values for MIB and TUNEL were grouped as described in Table 1 ▶ . As a measure of association, Pearson’s contingency coefficient was calculated. 18. In order to compare the contingency values of different tables, the contingency coefficients were expressed as percentage of the respective maximal contingency coefficient. For the calculation of predictive values, prevalence data on the occurrence of astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas were compiled from CBTRUS data. 19.