Table 2.
Tumour characteristics
| Argentina n = 10 | Chile n = 11 | India n = 10 | Vietnam n = 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumour locationa | ||||
| Caecum or ascending colon | 5 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| Transverse colon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Descending colon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Sigmoid colon or rectum | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 |
| Data not available | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Maximum tumour size in one direction | ||||
| Median (cm) (range) | 4 (0.7–7) | 6 (2.5–11) | 5 (3–5.5) | 4 (3–5) |
| Data not available | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Kruskal Wallis ANOVA p = 2.9 × 10−2 Post-hoc Dunn significant pairwise differences (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR adjusted): Chile vs Vietnam p = 3.5 × 10−2 | ||||
| Tumour stage (TNM8)a | ||||
| T1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| T2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| T3 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| T4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| Data not available | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
aTumour location and stage have not been tested for heterogeneity due to small numbers