Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27, 2025; 17(6): 105073
Published online Jun 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i6.105073
Table 2 Univariate analysis of influence factors between pathological T1-T2 staging and T3-T4 staging
Variable
T3-T4 staging (n = 92)
T1-T2 staging (n = 21)
t/χ2
P value
Age (years)58.4 ± 12.257.7 ± 10.9-0.2500.803
BMI (kg/m2)21.4 ± 3.220.1 ± 2.9-1.8620.065
Gender
    Male/female61/3110/112.5560.110
Lesion thickness (cm)1.6 ± 0.61.0 ± 0.4-4.022< 0.001
Lesion length (cm)5.7 ± 2.22.9 ± 1.0-5.596< 0.001
Presence of angle sign
    Yes/no85/74/1750.684< 0.001
Presence of ulcer
    Yes/no52/4011/100.1190.730
Lesion location
    Gastric antrum4497.7400.102
    Gastric fundus93
    Gastric body303
    Gastric fundus + body65
    Gastric angle31
CEA58/3421/0< 0.001
< 5 μg/L/≥ 5 μg/L
CA19-967/2518/30.9110.034
< 37 kU/L/≥ 37 kU/L
Clinical feature
    Epigastrium discomfort or dull pain2970.758
    Abdominal pain with black stool153
    Abdominal pain with belching175
    Abdominal distension with anorexia152
    Abdominal pain with vomiting132
    Dysphagia32
Histologic type
    Poor differentiated60112.1900.335
    Moderate differentiated298
    Well differentiated32
Lauren type
    Diffuse type60102.5790.275
    Hybrid type123
    Intestinal type208