Table 1.
Relationship between clinicopathologic features and incidence of C-erbB-2 amplification
Variable | Case number |
C-erbB-2 amplification (%) |
|
Surgical specimen | Endoscopic specimen | ||
Age (yr) | |||
< 60 | 16 | (31.3) | 4 (25.0) |
≥ 60 | 67 | 19 (28.4) | 13 (19.4) |
Sex | |||
Male | 51 | 15 (29.4) | 10 (19.6) |
Female | 32 | 9 (28.1) | 7 (21.9) |
Gross appearance | |||
Borrmann1 | 8 | 3 (37.5) | 2 (25.0) |
Borrmann 2 | 37 | 9 (24.3) | 7 (18.9) |
Borrmann 3 | 32 | 10 (31.2) | 7 (21.9) |
Borrmann 4 | 6 | 2 (33.3) | 1 (16.7) |
Depth of invasion | |||
Early cancer | 28 | 4 (14.3)a | 2 (7.1)a |
Advanced cancer | 55 | 20 (36.4) | 15 (27.3) |
Differentiation | |||
Well-mod | 45 | 17 (37.8) | 12 (26.7) |
Poor | 38 | 7 (18.4) | 5 (13.2) |
Lymph node metastasis | |||
Positive | 21 | 11 (52.4)b | 7 (33.3) |
Negative | 62 | 13 (21.0) | 10 (16.1) |
Liver metastasis | |||
Positive | 13 | 6 (46.2) | 4 (30.8) |
Negative | 70 | 18 (25.7) | 13 (18.6) |
Compared with the other results of same variable group,
P < 0.05;
P < 0.01. Well-mod: Well to moderately differentiated carcinoma; Poor: Poorly differentiated carcinoma.