Brief Articles
Copyright ©2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 7, 2009; 15(21): 2644-2650
Published online Jun 7, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.2644
Table 1 Ranking of associated tumors in family relatives of 256 probands
Associated tumorsFGC (n =112)
Non-FGC (n =144)
No. of associated tumorsPercentage
Male proband1 (n = 76)Female proband (n = 36)Male proband2 (n = 98)Female proband3 (n = 46)
Stomach1084615438.6
Esophagus7143227318.3
Liver211718389.5
Colorectum12310348.5
Lung42109256.3
Nasopharynx143174.3
Breast355133.3
Urogenital organ147123.0
Larynx5161.5
Pancreas3141.0
Others442125235.8
Total1295313681399100
Table 2 Distribution and number of affected relatives of 256 probands
Affected relativesFGC (n = 112)
Non-FGC (n =144)
No. of affected relativesPercentage
Male proband (n = 76)
Female proband (n = 36)
Male proband (n = 98)
Female proband (n = 46)
GCNon-GCGCNon-GCNon-GCNon-GC
Father31314381810426.5
Mother175924197418.8
Brother3441022378020.4
Sister72521694110.4
Son137112.8
Daughter1112382.0
Second-degree1758227167519.1
Total1082046713379393100
Table 3 Ratio of male to female in affected first-degree relatives in four subgroups
Gender of affected relativesFGC (n = 112)
Non-FGC (n = 144)
Male proband (n = 76)Female proband (n = 36)Male proband (n = 98)Female proband (n = 46)
Male73266432
Female33174231
Total1064310663
Ratio of male to female2.211.531.521.03
Table 4 Relative risk of GC by comparing male with female probands from their paternal or maternal history of cancers
Affected parentsFGC1 (n = 108)
OR (95% CI)Non-FGC (n = 144)
OR (95% CI)
Male proband (n = 72)Female proband (n = 36)Male proband (n = 98)Female proband (n = 46)
Father31141.19 (0.53-2.69)38180.99 (0.48-2.02)
Mother1790.93 (0.37-2.35)24190.46 (0.22-0.97)
Table 5 Comparison of 14 probands with both affected parents
Serial numberFatherMotherProbandAdenocarcinoma of proband
1GCGCSonPoorly
2GCBCSonPoorly
3GCEMCSonPoorly
4GCECSonPoorly
5HCGCSonPoorly
6HCECDaughterModerately
7ECECSonModerately
8ECECDaughterModerately
9CRCECSonPoorly
10CRCBCDaughterPoorly
11LCCRCSonPoorly
12LCLCDaughterMucinous
13NPCPCSonPoorly
14NPCHCDaughterSignet-ring cell
Table 6 Distribution of tumor histological types (converting the WHO to the Lauren classification) of 256 probands
Lauren classificationWHO classificationFGC (n = 112)
Non-FGC (n = 144)
Male proband (n = 76)Female proband (n = 36)Male proband (n = 98)Female proband (n = 46)
Intestinal typeWell32
Moderately1963912
Mucinous5353
Total2794615
Diffuse typePoorly44243925
Signet-ring cell32116
Undifferentiated212
Total49275231
Table 7 Distribution of anatomical sites of tumors in 256 probands
Tumor siteFGC (n = 112)
Non-FGC (n = 144)
Male proband (n = 76)Female proband (n = 36)Male proband (n = 98)Female proband (n = 46)
Upper2254216
2758
Medium2072715
2742
Lower34242915
5844
χ2 , P valueχ2 = 10.69, P < 0.05