Relationship between Egr-1 gene expression and apoptosis in esophageal carcinoma and precancerous lesions

Table 1 Changes of cell apoptosis in esophageal precancerous lesions and cancer tissues

Groups	n	Apoptosis cases (%)	AI (cells/mm2)
Normal epithelia	39	8 (20.5)	8.2 ± 3.1
Simple hyperplasia	52	17 (32.7)	13.4 ± 4.3
Dysplasia	41	31 (75.6)a	17.8 ± 8.3b
Carcinoma in situ	2	2 (100)	20.3 ± 5.1
Invasive carcinoma	64	64 (100)	25.2 ± 9.8

^aP < 0.01, χ² = 24.29 vs normal epithelia, χ² test;

^bP < 0.01, t = 5.19 vs normal epithelia, Student’s t test.

Table 2 The relationship between the expressions of Egr-1 and cell apoptosis in esophageal precancerous lesions and cancer tissues

Groups	n	Egr-1 positive		Egr-1 negative
		n (%)	AI(cells/mm2)	n (%)	AI(cells/mm2)
Normal epithelia	39	9 (23.1)	10.2 ± 4.1	30 (76.9)	3.8 ± 2.5
Simple hyperplasia	52	20 (38.5)	16.4 ± 5.6	30 (60.0)	7.2 ± 4.3
Dysplasia	41	27 (65.9)a	25.4 ± 9.2b	14 (34.1)	10.9 ± 7.4
Carcinoma in situ	2	1 (50.0)	29.3 ± 5.6	1 (50.0)	11.5 ± 3.7
Invasive carcinoma	64	17 (26.6)c	30.8 ± 6.8	47 (73.4)	21.4 ± 9.1

^aP < 0.01, χ² = 14.78 vs normal epithelia, χ² test;

^bP < 0.01, t = 6.80 vs normal epithelia, Student’s t test;

^cP < 0.01, χ² = 15.84 vs Dysplasia, χ² test.

Table 3 The relationship between the protein expression of Bcl-X_L and cell apoptosis in esophageal precancerous lesions and cancer tissues

Groups	n	Bcl-XL positive		Bcl-XL negative
		n (%)	AI(cells/mm2)	n (%)	AI(cells/mm2)
Normal epithelia	39	4 (10.3)	1.4 ± 1.2	35 (89.7)	8.3 ± 4.3
Simple hyperplasia	52	11 (21.2)	3.7 ± 3.6	41 (82.0)	14.5 ± 3.7
Dysplasia	41	28 (68.3)a	18.9 ± 8.2b	13 (31.7)	20.6 ± 6.3
Carcinoma in situ	2	1 (50.0)	11.8 ± 3.3	1 (50.0)	29.0 ± 5.7
Invasive carcinoma	64	46 (71.9)	14.5 ± 7.5c	18 (28.1)	28.6 ± 8.6

^aP < 0.01, χ² = 28.06 vs normal epithelia, χ² test;

^bP < 0.01, t = 10.53 vs normal epithelia, Student’s t test;

^cP < 0.01, t = 6.10 vs com-pared with Bcl-X/_L protein negative group, Student’s t test.

Table 4 The relationship between the expression of Egr-1 and cell apoptosis and biological behavior in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Clinicopathologic data	n	Egr-1 positive n(%)	AI(cells/mm2)
Age(years)
≤ 50	20	6 (30.0)	21.5 ± 7.9
> 50	46	12 (26.1)	24.3 ± 8.8
Tumor site
Upper segment	4	0 (0)	20.4 ± 6.2
Middle segment	50	14 (28.0)	23.7 ± 9.3
Lower segment	12	4 (33.3)	21.5 ± 8.4
Lesion’s diameter(cm)
≤ 5	45	10 (22.2)	22.6 ± 8.5
> 5	21	8 (38.1)	22.3 ± 9.2
Differentiation degrees
GradeI	18	7 (38.9)	31.6 ± 9.3
GradeII	33	10 (30.3)	28.5 ± 8.9
GradeIII	13	0 (0)	7.2 ± 3.5
Keratinization
Negative	15	1 (6.7)	8.6 ± 3.2
Positive	51	17 (33.3)a	34.7 ± 9.4b
Invasive depth
Upper muscular layer	22	5 (22.7)	18.7 ± 7.5
Serosa	44	13 (29.5)	26.1 ± 9.2
Lymphatic metastasis
Negative	30	11 (36.7)	23.4 ± 8.6
Positive	36	7 (19.4)	20.8 ± 7.5
Bcl-X/L protein
Negative	19	10 (52.6)	29.4 ± 8.8
Positive	47	8 (17.0)c	13.5 ± 4.2d

^aP < 0.05, χ² = 4.15 vs compared with non-keratinized squamous carcinoma group, χ² test;

^bP < 0.01, t = 16.79 vs compared with non-keratinized squamous carcinoma group, Student’s t test;

^cP < 0.01, χ² = 8.65 vs compared with Bcl-X/_L protein negative group, χ² test;

^dP < 0.01, t = 7.54 vs compared with Bcl-X/_L pro-tein negative group, Student’s t test.