Skip to main content
. 2002 Aug 15;8(4):591–595. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v8.i4.591

Table 1.

The relationship between the expressions of iNOS and VEGF, MVD and pathological features of gastric carcinoma

Pathological characteristics MVD (¯x ± s) positive iNOS (%) positive VEGF (%) total
Site of gastric cancer lesion
Upper one third 61.50 ± 14.50 5 (62.50) 4 (50.0) 8
Middle one third 59.82 ± 16.54 8 (61.54) 10 (76.92) 13
Lower one third 54.52 ± 20.01 14 (56.00) 21 (84.0) 25
Size of tumor
< 3 cm 61.50 ± 20.51 1 (50.0) 2 (100.0) 2
3-5 cm 59.78 ± 16.58 11 (61.11) 14 (77.78) 18
> 5 cm 54.86 ± 17.99 15 (57.69) 19 (73.08) 26
Depth of invasion
Invading serosa 62.35 ± 32.97 22 (64.71) 29 (85.29)c 34
Not invading serosa 55.15 ± 18.28 5 (41.67) 6 (50.0) 12
Metastasis of lymph nodes
Positive 68.69 ± 18.07a 26 (70.27)b 31 (83.78)d 37
Negative 54.40 ± 14.23 3 (33.33) 4 (44.44) 9
Degree of differentiation*
Well differentiated 49.49 ± 20.10 10 (66.67) 11 (73.33) 15
Poorly differentiated 59.24 ± 16.80 17 (54.84) 24 (77.42) 31

Note:*Well differentiated cancer cells include highly and moderately differentiated ones; poorly differentiated cancer cells include poorly differentiated and undifferentiated ones and mucous adenocarcinoma.

a

P < 0.01 (t = 2.205), vs MVD in cases having no lymph node metastasis;

b

P < 0.05 (χ² = 6.3587), vs the rate of expression of iNOS in cases having no lymph node metastasis;

c

P < 0.05 (χ² = 6.2584), vs the rate of expression of VEGF in gastric carcinomas not invading to serosa;

d

P < 0.05 (χ2 = 6.1574), vs the rate of expression of VEGF in cases having no lymph node metastasis.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure