Relationship between phenotypes of cell-function differentiation and pathobiological behavior of gastric carcinomas

Table 1 Standards of cell-function classification of gastric carcinoma

Type	Brush border enzyme		Mucin			Immunohistochemistry
	AKP	LAP	HID	ABpH2.5	PAS	Ch-A	Keratin
AFDT	+	+	-	-	-	-	-
MSFDT	-	-	+	+	+	-	-
ANOFDT	+	+	+	+	+	-	-
SFDT	-	-	-	-	-	+	+*
NFDT	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

*Chosen according to practice.

Table 2 Relationship between cell function classification and age of patients with gastric carcinoma

Type	n	Age
		< 45 yrs (%)	45-65 yrs (%)	> 65 yrs (%)
AFDT	82	6 (7.3)	59 (72.0)	17 (20.7)
MSFDT	54	2 (3.7)	43 (79.6)	9 (14.7)
AMPFDT	180	31 (17.2)a	118 (65.5)	31 (17.2)
SFDT	13	1 (7.7)	9 (69.2)	3 (23.1)
NFDT	32	6 (18.8)	17 (53.1)	9 (28.1)
Total	361	46 (12.7)	246 (68.1)	69 (19.1)

^aP < 0.05 (χ² = 4.5575), vs AFDT of the patients below 45 years old.

Table 3 Relationship between cell-function classification and sex of patients with gastric carcinoma

Type	n	Female (%)		Male (%)
		n	%	n	%
AFDT	82	16	(19.5)	66	(80.5)
MSFDT	54	15	(27.8)	39	(72.2)
AMPFDT	180	62	(34.4)a	118	(65.6)
SFDT	13	3	(23.1)	10	(76.9)
NFDT	32	7	(21.9)	25	(78.1)
Total	361	103	(28.5)	258	(71.5)

^aP < 0.05 (χ² = 6.0079), vs AFDT of female patients.

Table 4 Relationship between cell-function and WHO’s histological classifications of gastric carcinoma

Types	n	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
Papillary adenocarcinoma	37	29 (78.4)a	2 (5.4)	6 (16.2)	0	0
Tubular adenocarcinoma
Well-diff. ade.	20	17 (85.0)	0	2 (10.0)	0	1 (5.0)
Mode. diff. ade.	59	20 (33.9)	5 (8.5)	27 (45.8)	1 (1.7)	6 (10.2)
Poor. diff. ade.	126	15 (11.9)	14 (11.1)	79 (62.7)	2 (1.6)	16 (12.7)
Undiff. car.	30	1 (3.3)	7 (23.3)	13 (43.3)	0	9 (30.0)
SRC	41	0	5 (12.2)	6 (87.8)b	0	0
Mucous ade.	38	0	21 (55.3)	17 (44.7)	0	0
Carcinoid	9	0	0	0	9 (100.0)	0
Squamous car.	1	0	0	0	1 (100.0)	0
Total	361	82 (22.7)	54 (15.0)	180 (49.9)	13 (3.6)	32 (8.9)

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 28.6784), vs others of the papillary adenocarcinomas;

^bP < 0.01 (χ² = 46.8780), vs others of signetring cell carcinomas. ade: Adenocarcinoma; diff.: Differentiated; mode.: Moderately; undiff.: Undifferentiated; SRC: Signet ring cell carcinoma

Table 5 Relationship between cell-function and Lauren£§s classifications of gastric carcinoma

Types	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
Intestinal	124 (36.4)	69 (84.1)a	11 (20.4)	33 (18.3)	11 (84.6)b	0
Diffuse	237 (63.6)	13 (15.9)	43 (79.6)	147 (81.7)	2 (15.4)	32 (100.0)
Total	361	82	54	180	13	32

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 102.6339), vs AMPFDT;

^bP < 0.01 (χ² = 15.11320), vs AMPFDT.

Table 6 Relationship between cell-function classification and histological growth patterns of gastric carcinomas

Patterns	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
Mass	19 (6.1)	12 (19.4)	0	0	7 (53.8)	0
Nest	84 (27.0)	37 (59.7)	12 (22.2)	23 (14.8)	6 (46.2)	6 (22.2)
Diffuse	208 (66.9)	13 (21.0)a	42 (77.8)	132 (85.2)	0	21 (77.8)
Total	311	62 (19.9)	54 (17.4)	155 (49.8)	13 (4.2)	27 (8.7)

^aP < 0.01 (Exact test: χ² = 12.2793), vs MSFDT, AMPFDT and NFDT.

Table 7 Relationship between cell-function classification and clinicopathological stages of gastric carcinomas

Stages	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
EGC	50 (13.9)	20 (24.4)	0	25 (13.9)	0	5 (15.6)
AGC
Subserosa	42 (11.6)	8 (9.8)	1 (1.9)	28 (25.6)	1 (7.7)	4 (12.5)
Through serosa	269 (74.5)	54 (65.9)	53 (98.1)a	127 (70.6)	12 (92.3)	23 (71.9)
Total	361	82	54	180	13	32

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 10.1203, 8.9078 and 6.7487 respectively), vs AFDT, AMPFDT and NFDT.

Table 8 Relationship between cell-function classification and ER expression of gastric carcinomas

ER expression	AFDT	MSFDT	AMPFDT	SFDT	NFDT	Total
Positive/examined	7/82	12/54	129/180	0/13	7/32	155/361
Positive rate (%)	8.5	22.2	71.7a	21.9	42.9

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 45.6418), vs others.

Table 9 Relationship between cell-function classification and CD44v6 expression in gastric carcinoma tissues

CD44v6	n	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
-	241	44	32	132	9	24
+ (%)	120 (33.2)	38 (46.3)a	22 (40.7)b	48 (26.7)	4 (30.8)	8 (25.0)
Total	361	82	54	180	13	32

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 9.8900), vs AMPFDT;

^bP < 0.05 (χ² = 3.9245), vs AMPFDT.

Table 10 Relationship between cell-function classification and metastases of gastric carcinomas

Types	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
No mets	111 (30.7)	28 (34.1)	13 (24.1)	51 (28.3)	6 (46.2)	13 (40.6)
LN mets	224 (62.0)	45 (54.9)	38 (70.4)	116 (64.4)	6 (46.2)	19 (59.4)
Liver mets	12 (3.3)	9 (11.0)a	1 (1.9)	1 ( 0.6)	1 (7.7)	0
Ovary mets	14 (3.9)	0	2 (3.7)	12 (6.7)	0	0
Total	361	82 (22.7)	54 (15.0)	180 (49.9)	13 (3.6)	32 (8.9)

^aP < 0.05 (Exact test: χ² = 5.4385), vs AMPFDT. Mets: Metastasis; LN: Lymph node.

Table 11 Relationship among cell-function classification, metastasis and sex of patients with gastric carcinoma

Types	Liver metastasis		Ovary metastasis
	Male (%)	Female (%)
AFDT	9/66 (13.6)a	0/16	0/16
MSFDT	0/39	1/15 (6.7)	2/15 (13.3)
AMPFDT	1/118 (0.8)	0/62	12/62 (19.4)b
SFDT	1/10 (10.0)	0/3	0/3
NFDT	0/25	0/7	0/7
Total	11/258 (4.3)	1/103 (1.0)	14/103 (13.6)

^aP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 8.9527), vs AMPFDT of the male with liver metastasis;

^bP < 0.05 (Exact test χ² = 4.2992), vs AFDT, SFDT and NFDT of the female with ovary metastasis.

Table 12 Comparison of cell-function differentiation classification and molecular biological features of gastric carcinoma with liver or ovary metastases

Comparison	GC with liver mets.	GC with ovary mets.
	Positive/12 cases (%)	Positive/14 cases (%)
Cell-function differentiation types
AFDT	9 (75.0)a	0
MSFDT	1 (8.3)	2 (14.3)
AMPFDT	1 (8.3)	12 (85.7)b
SFDT	1 (8.3)	0
NFDT	0	0
Comparison of molecular biological features
Estrogen-dependent ER (+)	0	12 (85.7)c
LN (+) BM structure (+)	12 (100.0)	0
Mutant p53 protein (+)	10 (83.3)d	3 (21.4)
DNA ploidy:Diploid	3 (25.0)	10 (71.4)
Tetraploid	0	2 (14.3)
Aneuploid	9 (75.0)e	2 (14.3)
CD44v6 expression (+)	10 (83.3)f	0

LN: Laminin; BM: Basement membrane; Mets: Metastasis

^aP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 12.9160), vs AFDT with ovary mets;

^bP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 12.5357), vs AMPFDT with liver mets;

^cP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 15.8087), vs GC with liver mets;

^dP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 7.5833), vs GC with ovary mets;

^eP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 6.0420), vs GC with ovary mets;

^fP < 0.05 (Exact test χ² = 15.6010), vs GC with ovary mets.

Table 13 Relationship between postoperative survival rates and cell function classification of gastric carcinomas

Types	n	Cases survived over 5 years (%)
AFDT	82	48	(58.5)a
MSFDT	49	14	(28.6)
AMPFDT	174	43	(24.7)
SFDT	5	3	(60.0)
NFDT	32	9	(28.1)
Total	342	117 (34.2)

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 11.0478, 28.7138 and 10.3250), vs MSFDT, AMPFDT and NFDT, respectively.