Table 2.

Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for the survival of gastric carcinoma patients

Characteristics	No.	OS		RFS
		HR (95% CI)	p	HR (95% CI)	p
Age, years, ≥ 60 (vs < 60)	117/167	1.232 (0.783-1.936)	0.367	1.169 (0.753-1.812)	0.487
Sex, male (vs female)	126/167	0.974 (0.608-1.559)	0.912	1.038 (0.650-1.657)	0.876
CEAa, elevated (vs normal)	30/137	2.087 (1.266-3.440)	0.004	1.948 (1.188-3.194)	0.008
CA19-9a, elevated (vs normal)	16/137	2.571 (1.407-4.696)	0.002	2.314 (1.272-4.211)	0.006
Tumor stage, III & IV (vs I & II)	90/167	5.309 (3.250-8.671)	<0.001	5.225 (3.252-8.393)	<0.001
Lymph node metastasis, presence (vs absence)	110/167	4.223 (2.448-7.286)	<0.001	4.311 (2.536-7.328)	<0.001
Venous invasion, presence (vs absence)	30/167	2.901 (1.827-4.607)	<0.001	2.789 (1.762-4.413)	<0.001
Tumor invasion, AGC (vs EGC)	134/167	4.105 (1.959-8.601)	<0.001	4.429 (2.118-9.262)	<0.001
Histologic gradeb, WD	11/117	1	0.039	1	0.037
MD	65/117	2.713 (0.837-8.797)	0.096	2.832 (0.874-9.170)	0.083
PD	41/117	4.042 (1.229-13.294)	0.022	4.143 (1.262-13.602)	0.019
NGF, positive (vs negative)	68/167	1.943 (1.290-2.927)	0.001	1.932 (1.294-2.886)	0.001
HO1, positive (vs negative)	85/167	2.358 (1.532-3.630)	<0.001	2.185 (1.438-3.321)	<0.001
NGF/HO1 expression, −/−	60/167	1	<0.001	1	<0.001
−/+ or +/−	62/167	2.348 (1.365-4.037)	0.002	2.019 (1.203-3.389)	0.008
+/+	45/167	3.489 (1.995-6.101)	<0.001	3.218 (1.888-5.487)	<0.001

Abbreviations: HR hazard ratio, EGC early gastric cancer, AGC advanced gastric cancer

^aThe data for the serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 were available in 137 and 137 patients, respectively

^bHistologic grading was carried in tubular and papillary type carcinomas according to the grading system of the WHO histological classification of gastric tumors