Syndrome differentiation in traditional Chinese medicine and E-cadherin/ICAM-1 gene protein expression in gastric carcinoma

Table 1 Correlation between pathology and syndrome differentiation in 419 cases of gastric carcinoma

Items		Syndrome differentiation						All	P
		IBLS	SPD	IOST	DCSS	YISH	DOQB
(n)		148	84	74	46	29	38	419
Sex	M	99	64	57	34	11	21	286	0.001
	W	49	20	17	12	18	17	133
Age (yr)	<40	11	9	7	3	2	2	34	0.894
	≥ 40	137	75	67	43	27	36	385
PC	Squamous carcinoma	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
	adenoma	122	70	64	39	26	36	357	0.277
	Mucoid adenoma	10	3	7	4	2	2	28
	Signet-ring	15	11	3	3	1	0	33
AS	I (I-II)	2	2	1	0	1	1	7	0.899
	II (II-III)	75	41	38	31	16	20	221
	III (III-IV)	70	38	34	14	12	16	184
	IV	1	3	1	1	0	1	7
In	1	21	5	6	2	2	2	38	0.298
	2	32	24	21	11	6	4	98
	3	51	22	29	20	9	15	146
	4	44	33	18	13	12	17	137
LNM	No	50	30	28	16	9	13	146	0.989
	Yes	98	54	46	30	20	25	273
DM	0	116	64	58	37	19	31	325	0.676
	1	32	20	16	9	10	7	94
CS	I	42	20	18	10	4	6	100	0.216
	II	18	13	16	7	6	4	64
	IIIa-IIIb	48	22	22	20	10	13	135
	IV	40	29	18	9	9	15	120
TS	Lump	25	16	18	11	7	8	85	0.278
	Ulcer	19	15	12	4	7	7	64
	Ulcerative lump	82	44	39	30	13	21	229
	LB stomach	4	1	0	1	1	2	9
	Local mucous lesion	18	8	5	0	1	0	32
TL	Fundal cardia	7	8	9	5	4	4	37	0.452
	Body	57	34	33	24	11	18	177
	Antrum/pylorus	79	38	31	15	12	16	191
	Multiple	5	4	1	2	2	0	14

PC: pathologic classification; AS: adenoma staging; In:infiltration; LNM: lymph node metastasis; DM: distant metastasis; CS: clinical staging; TS: tumor shape; TL: tumor location.

Table 2 E-cad immunohistochemical expression values in different syndrome differentiation types of gastric carcinoma

SD in TCM	n	E-cad expression value
SPD (1)	17	6	6	9	6	0	4	6	6	6	9	6	3	6	8	9	6	3
YISH (2)	16	2	6	6	0	4	8	2	2	4	2	8	6	4	12	4	1
IOST (3)	16	0	0	6	12	6	0	3	0	3	3	2	0	8	1	4	4
DOQB (4)	17	6	4	6	8	8	6	2	12	9	6	4	4	4	0	6	8	9
DCSS (5)	17	6	6	4	12	4	6	8	9	6	8	2	4	1	12	2	4	4
IBLS (6)	17	0	12	2	0	2	3	2	1	6	4	1	6	2	6	2	4	0

SD in TCM: Syndrome differentiation in traditional Chinese medicine.

Table 3 Comparison of E-cad expression values and SD in TCM

Comparison groups	χ2	P	Comparison groups	χ2	P
1, 2	88.434	< 0.01	2, 6	60.018	< 0.01
1, 3	264.674	< 0.01	3, 4	265.648	< 0.01
1, 4	0.001	> 0.05	3, 5	193.162	< 0.01
1, 5	6.021	> 0.05	3, 6	0.697	> 0.05
1, 6	303.01	< 0.01	4, 5	5.936	> 0.05
2, 3	46.373	< 0.01	4, 6	302.395	< 0.01
2, 4	88.107	< 0.01	5, 6	223.599	< 0.01
2, 5	48.806	< 0.01

Table 4 ICAM-1 immunhistochemical expression values in different SD types

SD type	n	ICAM-1
SPD	17	0	0	0	1	1	1	6	0	0	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1
YISH	16	1	0	2	0	1	0	2	1	0	1	2	1	2	0	1	1
IOST	16	2	0	4	0	2	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	4	1	4	1
DOQB	17	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	2	0	6	1
DCSS	17	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	2	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
IBLS	17	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	4	0	2	1	0	1	0	0

χ² = 8.999, P = 0.109.