Table 2. Association between caldesmon expression and clinicopathological characteristics.
| Variables | Caldesmon expression* | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | ||
| Total no.(%) | 43 (32.6) | 89 (67.4) | - |
| Gender (no. [%]) | 0.176 | ||
| Male | 32 (74.4) | 75 (84.3) | |
| Female | 11 (25.6) | 14 (15.7) | |
| Tumor size (no. [%]) | 0.009 | ||
| <3 cm | 37 (86.0) | 57 (64.0) | |
| ≥3 cm | 6 (14.0) | 32 (36.0) | |
| Multifocality (no. [%]) | 0.293 | ||
| Single | 35 (81.4) | 65 (73.0) | |
| Multiple | 8 (18.6) | 24 (27.0) | |
| Concomitant carcinoma in situ (no. [%]) | 0.115 | ||
| No | 39 (90.7) | 71 (79.8) | |
| Yes | 4 (9.3) | 18 (20.2) | |
| Morphology (no. [%]) | 0.773 | ||
| Papillary | 39 (90.7) | 78 (87.6) | |
| Sessile | 4 (9.3) | 11 (12.4) | |
| Lymphovascular invasion (no. [%]) | 0.005 | ||
| No | 41 (95.3) | 67 (75.3) | |
| Yes | 2 (4.7) | 22 (24.7) | |
| Intravesical therapy (no. [%]) | 0.010 | ||
| No | 30 (69.8) | 41 (46.1) | |
| Yes | 13 (30.2) | 48 (53.9) | |
| T stage (no. [%]) | <0.001 | ||
| Ta | 38 (88.4) | 19 (21.3) | |
| T1 | 5 (11.6) | 70 (78.7) | |
| Grade (no. [%]) | <0.001 | ||
| Low | 37 (86.0) | 40 (44.9) | |
| High | 6 (14.0) | 49 (55.1) | |
*
The immunohistochemical score was based on both staining area and intensity, and caldesmon expression was negative in 43 patients (32.6%), mild in 35 patients (26.5%), moderate in 37 patients (28.0%), and strong in 17 patients (12.9%). Its expression was dichotomized (negative vs. positive) because such grouping showed the most significant survival difference in the Kaplan–Meier analysis.