Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 7;2020:9514831. doi: 10.1155/2020/9514831

Table 4.

Comparison of miR-155 expression among clinical categories.

Pathological categories Sample size x-fold expression ± SD (vs. control) p (ANOVAǂ) p (vs. control) (Tukey)
Normal 36 1 ± 0.33
Histology grade
 WD 10 1.38 ± 0.3 <0.001 0.016
 MD 15 1.67 ± 0.52 <0.001
 PD 11 2.07 ± 0.81 <0.001

TNM stage
 Stage I 8 1.53 ± 0.5 <0.001 0.002
 Stage II 17 1.62 ± 0.38 <0.001
 Stage III 11 1.91 ± 0.94 <0.001

Tumor size (T)
 T1 (T < 2) 11 1.48 ± 0.45 <0.001 0.0015
 T2 (2 ≤ T < 5) 18 1.75 ± 0.47 <0.001
 T3 (T ≥ 5) 7 1.87 ± 1.08 <0.001

Lymph node involvement (N)
 Yes 17 1.86 ± 0.82 0.15 <0.001
 No 19 1.54 ± 0.37 <0.001

Estrogen receptor (ER)
 ER+ 24 1.65 ± 0.73 0.84 <0.001
 ER- 12 1.75 ± 0.49 <0.001

Progesterone receptor (PR)
 PR+ 19 1.77 ± 0.81 0.54 <0.001
 PR- 17 1.60 ± 0.38 <0.001

HER2
 HER+ 9 1.78 ± 0.66 0.79 <0.001
 HER- 27 1.65 ± 0.65 <0.001

Ki-67
 ≤10% 14 1.64 ± 0.56 0.9 <0.001
 >10% 22 1.71 ± 0.71 <0.001

WD = grade 1; MD = grade 2; PD = grade 3; ER = estrogen receptor; PR = progesterone receptor; HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. ǂThe analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for the analysis. Tukey multiple comparison.