Ultrastructure and molecular biological changes of chronic gastritis, gastric cancer and gastric precancerous lesions: a comparative study

Table 1 Comparison between classification of IM and grading of ATP in CG and GC gastric mucosa n (%)

Groups	n	IM classification				Grading of ATP
		Ia	Ib	IIa	IIb	ATP+	ATP++	IM++ + ATP+	IM++ + ATP++	IM+++ + ATP+	IM+++ + ATP++	IM+++ + ATP+++
NC	15	2 (13.3)	1 (6.7)
CSG	68	16 (23.5)	8 (11.8)	6 (8.8)	3 (4.4)	8 (11.8)	1 (1.5)		2 (2.9)
CAG	64	16 (25.0)b	11 (17.2)b	13 (20.3)d	13 (20.3)d	2 (3.1)d	6 (9.4)d	7 (10.9)	5 (7.8)c	1 (1.5)	1 (1.6)
CA	36		4 (11.1)	9 (25.0)c	16 (44.4)df	1 (2.8)d	6 (16.7)d	3 (8.3)	2 (5.6)c	4 (11.1)f	7 (19.4) f	1 (2.8)

Either Solitary IM or IM with concomitant ATP in CSG, CAG or CA is included in IM classification statistically, compared with NC group. ^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01; compared with CSG group.

^cP < 0.05,

^dP < 0.01; compared with CAG group. ^eP < 0.05,

^fP < 0.01. In table 2-6, the marks are the same as here.