Table 4.

Association between XPF expression and clinicopathological parameters in CRC

Variables	Cases	(−)	(+)	(++)	(+++)	PR (%)	P
		n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Gender
Male	143	66	62	9	6	53.8%	0.056
Female	105	58	39	6	2	44.8%
Age (years)
> 60	119	62	47	7	3	47.9%	0.319
≤ 60	129	62	54	8	5	51.9%
Smoking
Yes	59	27	25	2	5	54.2%	0.304
No	189	97	76	13	3	48.7%
Drinking
Yes	40	20	17	1	2	50.0%	0.672
No	208	104	84	14	6	50.0%
Tumor location
Colon	82	54	21	3	4	34.1%	0.005
Rectum	166	70	80	12	4	57.8%
TNM stagea
I	6	2	3	1	0	66.7%	0.151
II	89	36	44	7	2	59.6%
III	132	74	48	5	5	43.9%
IV	18	10	5	2	1	44.4%
Invasive extenta
T1-2	44	20	19	3	2	54.5%	0.395
T3-4	155	84	57	8	6	45.8%
Lymph node metastasis
Positive	148	79	56	8	5	46.6%	0.106
Negative	100	45	45	7	3	55.0%
Distant metastasis
Positive	64	30	28	3	3	53.1%	0.341
Negative	184	94	73	12	5	48.9%
Perineural invasion
Positive	148	78	57	9	4	47.3%	0.605
Negative	100	46	44	6	4	54.0%
Vessel carcinoma embolus
Positive	60	36	20	3	1	40.0%	0.131
Negative	188	88	81	12	7	53.2%
Growth patten
Infiltrative	152	85	58	5	4	44.1%	0.009
Nested/cloddy	96	39	43	10	4	59.4%
Differentiation degree
Poor/mucinous	80	47	27	4	2	41.3%	0.083
Well/moderate	168	77	74	11	6	54.2%
Family history
Positive	43	22	15	4	2	48.8%	0.611
Negative	205	102	86	11	6	50.2%

PR positive rate. Negative (−), light positive (+), positive (++), strong positive (+++) staining

The association of XPF expression with TNM stage was analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis H- test of nonparametric test. For other clinicopathological parameters, Mann–Whitney U- test of nonparametric test was used

The italics values: P < 0.05

^aIncomplete information