Table 5.
Correlations of clinicopathological parameters and TAP1 D637G polymorphism in Kazakh patients with ESCC
| Parameters | AA | AG/GG | OR (95 % CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Cases/controls) | (Cases/controls) | ||
| Gendera | |||
| Male | 48/92 | 46/62 | 1.422 (0.848–2.385) |
| Female | 25/81 | 31/48 | 2.093 (1.107–3.954)* |
| Agea | |||
| ≤52 | 30/91 | 30/60 | 1.517 (0.831–2.769) |
| >52 | 43/82 | 37/50 | 1.411 (0804–2.478) |
| Tumor depthb | |||
| T1/T2 | 37/173 | 48/110 | 2.040 (1.249–3.333)** |
| T3/T4 | 36/173 | 29/110 | 1.267 (0.735–2.184) |
| Histologic grade (G)b | |||
| G1 | 27/173 | 27/110 | 1.573 (0.877–2.822) |
| G2 | 38/173 | 40/110 | 1.656 (0.999–2.741) |
| G3 | 8/173 | 10/110 | 1.966 (0.753–5134) |
| Clinical stageb | |||
| I/II | 53/173 | 58/110 | 1.721 (1.106–2.679)* |
| III/IV | 20/173 | 19/110 | 1.494 (0.763–2.925) |
We consider the common homozygotes of TAP1 as ORs of 1.000 for the reference genotype
“*”represents P < 0.05, “**”indicates P < 0.01, “***”depicts P < 0.001
aStratification analysis to evaluate the effects of variant genotypes on the risk of ESCC by age and sex
bLogistic regression analysis for the effects of TAP1 variants on risk of ESCC with different tumor depth, histologic grade and clinical stage through logistic regression analyses. G1: well differentiated; G2: moderately differentiated; G3: poorly differentiated