Basic Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 21, 2021; 27(23): 3327-3341
Published online Jun 21, 2021. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i23.3327
Table 1 Comparative analysis of hepatic tuftelin 1 immunohistochemical staining and expressing intensity between hepatocellular carcinoma and their para-cancerous tissues
Group
n
TUFT1
χ2 value
P value
TUFT1 score
Z value
P value
Neg.
Pos.
0
1
2
3
HCC1321711518.563< 0.001174955114.911< 0.001
Non-HCC13247854754238
Table 2 Relationship between tuftelin 1 and clinicopathological characteristics in hepatocellular carcinoma patients
Group
n
TUFT1 expression
Pearson χ2
P value
Low
High
AFP (ng/mL)2.9010.089
< 20281810
≥ 201044856
HBsAg3.3000.069
Neg.1293
Pos.1205763
HBeAg4.0800.043
Neg.874938
Pos.451728
Tumor size (cm)9.3880.002
< 326206
≥ 31064660
Differentiation degree 3.0130.083
Well-Med. 19136
Poor1135360
Vascular invasion14.885< 0.001
With 581840
Without744826
Ascites5.9400.015
With 321022
Without1005644
TNM staging13.516< 0.001
I-II594019
III-IV732647
Table 3 Univariate and multivariate analysis of tuftelin 1 in the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma
Group
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
HR
95%CI
P value
HR
95%CI
P value
TUFT1 expression, high vs low3.0261.927-4.752< 0.0011.7431.044-2.9100.034
AFP (ng/mL), ≥ 20 vs < 201.8661.066-3.2660.0271.4820.835-2.6300.178
HBsAg, pos. vs neg.1.4950.652-3.4310.339
HBeAg, pos. vs neg.1.6701.084-2.5740.0191.0700.659-1.7390.784
Tumor size (cm), ≥ 3 vs < 3 3.6801.837-7.370< 0.0012.2351.043-4.4850.039
Differentiation degree, Poor vs well-med.1.6420.869-3.1000.123
Vascular invasion, with vs without3.2972.133-5.094< 0.0012.0181.186-3.4340.010
Ascites, with vs without2.5921.648-4.076< 0.0011.9291.177-3.1610.009
TNM staging, III-IV vs I-II2.4111.532-3.796< 0.0011.1100.614-2.0050.731