Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 14;7(7):3453–3464. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1597

Table 3.

Comparison of Oral EBV DNA loads in NPC pedigrees and general controls

Subjects EBV loads (copies/mL)a Medianb Median (IQR)c P d
<33 978, N(%) ≥33 978, N(%)
Healthy controls 828 (50.00) 828 (50.00) 33 978 4.53 (3.04‐4.53) Ref.
Unaffected relatives 82 (49.70) 83 (50.30) 34 930 4.54 (2.88‐5.68) .719
Parents 9 (37.50) 15 (62.50) 100 352 4.97 (3.13‐6.07) .142
Offspring 27 (60.00) 18 (40.00) 2064 3.31 (2.66‐5.72) .266
Sibling 17 (43.59) 22 (56.41) 71 519 4.85 (2.94‐5.43) .456
Spouse 16 (53.33) 14 (46.67) 25 269 4.39 (3.07‐5.50) .590
Other relatives 13 (50.00) 14 (50.00) 24 292 3.93 (2.43‐5.62) .556
NPC patients 65 (71.43) 26 (28.57) 4464 3.65 (2.85‐4.63) .004
.040e
a

Oral EBV loads were assigned into 2 groups based on the median of that in healthy controls (33 978 copies/mL).

b

Median represents the median value of the oral EBV load copy number in per milliliter mouth washing.

c

Median (IQR) represents the log10 transformed median value and interquartile value of oral EBV load copy number in per milliliter mouth washing.

d

Mann‐Whitney U test was used for comparison of oral EBV load between general healthy subjects and NPC pedigree members.

e

Mann‐Whitney U test was used for comparison of oral EBV load between unaffected family members and NPC probands.