Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 19;14(2):2288–2294. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.6413

Table I.

Associations between cofilin expression and clinicopathological features in breast cancer.

Cofilin staining intensity

Factor Number 0 1 2 3 P-value
All, n (%) 310 53 (17) 114 (37) 92 (30) 51 (16)
Age, yearsa 54 (29–88) 50.5 (29–83) 54 (31–88) 57 (31–87) 56 (37–88) 0.055b
Tumor size, mma 30 (10–150) 30 (10–100) 30 (14–130) 30 (10–150) 35 (10–100) 0.294b
NHG, n (%) 0.030d
  I 19 (6) 6 (32) 8 (42) 5 (26) 0 (0)
  II 210 (68) 36 (17) 83 (40) 61 (29) 30 (14)
  III 70 (22) 10 (14) 21 (30) 19 (27) 20 (29)
  Missing 11 (4)
Nodal status, n (%) 0.082c
  N0 141 (45) 21 (15) 48 (34) 49 (34) 23 (16)
  N1 86 (28) 14 (16) 33 (38) 21 (24) 18 (21)
  N2 56 (18) 11 (20) 26 (46) 13 (23) 6 (11)
  N3 21 (7) 7 (33) 2 (10) 8 (38) 4 (19)
  Missing 6 (2)
ER status, n (%) 0.084c
  Positive 191 (62) 26 (14) 76 (40) 62 (32) 27 (14)
  Negative 114 (37) 24 (21) 36 (32) 30 (26) 24 (21)
  Missing 5 (2)
PR status, n (%) 0.176c
  Positive 139 (45) 21 (15) 56 (40) 45 (32) 17 (12)
  Negative 168 (54) 31 (18) 56 (33) 47 (28) 34 (20)
  Missing 3 (1)
Ki67 status, n (%) 0.001c
  >14% 99 (32) 11 (11) 29 (29) 32 (32) 27 (27)
  ≤14% 211 (68) 42 (20) 85 (40) 60 (28) 24 (13)
  Missing 0 (0)
HER2 status, n (%)e 0.000d
  Strong 77 (25) 2 (2) 29 (38) 28 (36) 18 (23)
  Weak 233 (75) 51 (22) 85 (36) 64 (27) 33 (14)
  Missing 0 (0)
a

Data presented as mean (range).

b

One-factor analysis of variance.

c

Pearson χ2 test, 2-tailed P-value.

d

Fisher's excat test.

e

Weak (score 0–1, or FISH), strong (score 3, or FISH+). NGH, Nottingham histological grade; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization.