Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 19;23(22):14383. doi: 10.3390/ijms232214383

Table 7.

The comparison of E-cadherin expression in EOC versus BOT patients.

Number of
Patients
E-Cad Positive
Expression n(%)
p Value IRS p Value Localization Cutoff [%] Ref
EOC = 39
BOT = 9
8
12 *
0.024 NL 10 [30]
EOC = 95
BOT = 23
79 (83)
23 (100) *

0.05
M 10 [32]
EOC = 136
BOT = 45
120 (88) #
7 (16)
<0.0001 NL 6 [45]
EOC = 75
BOT = 23
124.1 ± 92.9
123.8 ± 106.8
ns C Nd [53]
EOC = 68
BOT = 14
52 (76)
10 (71)
ns NL Nd [56]
EOC = 46
BOT = 13
28 (61)
6 (78)
=0.22 NL 10 [58]
EOC = 63
BOT = 7
4.98 ± 0.68 #
2.71 ± 1.14
≤0.05 NL 1 [68]
EOC = 30
BOT = 30
25 (83)
30 (100) *

<0.05
M 1 [71]
EOC = 31
BOT = 12
1.61 ± 1.17
7.58 ± 2.97 *
<0.01 M 25 [72]
EOC = 78
BOT = 17
25 (32)
5 (29)
=0.062 M 50 [73]

Ns—not significant; nd—no data; NL—not localized; M—membranous; C—cytoplasmic; M + C—membranous + cytoplasmic (total). * significantly higher E-cadherin expression in BOT versus EOC patients; # significantly higher E-cadherin expression in EOC versus BOT.