Clinicopathological significance of LRP16 protein in 336 gastric carcinoma patients

Table 1 Comparison of clinicopathological factors between LRP16 positive and LRP16 negative patients with gastric carcinoma n (%)

Variable	LRP16		Statistics value
	Positive group (n = 197)	Negative group (n = 139)
Gender
Male	165 (60.2)	109 (39.8)	χ2 = 1.544
Female	32 (51.6)	30 (48.4)	P = 0.214
Age (yr)
≤ 40	19 (55.9)	15 (44.1)	χ2 = 1.544
41-65	114 (57.6)	84 (42.4)	P = 0.756
> 65	64 (61.5)	40 (38.5)
Tumor size (cm)
< 4	36 (46.8)	41 (53.2)	χ2 = 11.593
4-7	117 (58.2)	84 (41.8)	P = 0.003a
≥ 8	44 (75.9)	14 (24.1)
Histologic differentiation
Well differentiated	8 (47.1)	9 (52.9)	χ2 = 1.165
Moderately differentiated	40 (61.5)	25 (38.5)	P = 0.558
Poorly differentiated	149 (58.7)	105 (41.3)
Depth of invasion, T stage
T1	10 (43.5)	13 (56.5)	χ2 = 9.041
T2	55 (53.4)	48 (46.6)	P = 0.029a
T3	113 (60.4)	74 (39.6)
T4	19 (82.6)	4 (17.4)
Lymph node metastasis
0	49 (44.1)	62 (55.9)	χ2 = 18.946
1-6	77 (60.2)	51 (39.8)	P = 0.000a
7-15	49 (68.1)	23 (31.9)
> 15	21 (84.0)	4 (16.0)
Distant metastasis
Negative	182 (56.9)	138 (43.1)	χ2 = 8.543
Positive	15 (93.8)	1 (6.2)	P = 0.003a
TNM stage
I-II stage	63 (44.1)	80 (55.9)	χ2 = 21.804
III-IV stage	134 (69.4)	59 (30.6)	P = 0.000a

^aP < 0.05, statistically significant.

Table 2 Cox regression analysis of prognostic factors in gastric carcinoma

Prognostic variables	B	SE	Wald value	P value	RR
Gender	0.041	0.112	0.134	0.714	1.042
Age	0.523	0.078	45.169	0.000a	1.687
Histologic differentiation	0.143	0.105	1.830	0.176	1.153
Histologic type	0.192	0.051	14.344	0.000a	1.212
Depth of invasion	0.240	0.119	4.063	0.044a	1.271
Lymph node metastasis	0.278	0.100	7.746	0.005a	1.321
Distant metastasis	1.058	0.214	24.495	0.000a	2.881
TNM stage	-0.016	0.131	0.015	0.901	0.984
Tumor size	0.686	0.082	70.279	0.000a	1.986
LRP16 expression	0.174	0.094	3.466	0.063	1.190

^aP < 0.05, statistically significant. B: Partial regression coefficient; RR: Relative risk.