Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 28, 2016; 22(44): 9803-9812
Published online Nov 28, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9803
Table 1 Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Variablesn (%)
Age (yr) ≤ 6046 (25.6)
> 60134 (74.4)
SexMale169 (93.9)
Female11 (6.1)
SmokingNo28 (15.6)
Yes151 (84.4)
Histological gradeWD35 (19.4)
MD119 (66.1)
PD and basaloid26 (14.4)
LocalizationUpper7 (3.9)
Middle44 (24.9)
Lower116 (65.5)
EGJ10 (5.6)
T1a16 (8.9)
1b65 (36.1)
217 (9.4)
378 (43.3)
44 (2.2)
N092 (51.1)
152 (28.9)
229 (16.1)
37 (3.9)
StageIA14 (7.8)
IB49 (27.2)
IIA21 (11.7)
IIB32 (17.8)
IIIA37 (20.6)
IIIB19 (10.6)
IIIC8 (4.4)
Adjuvant therapyNo112 (67.8)
Yes58 (32.2)
FGFR1 amplificationNo amplification136 (78.6)
Low amplification3 (1.7)
High amplification34 (19.7)
MYC amplificationNo amplification77 (45.9)
Low amplification20 (11.9)
High amplification71 (42.3)
MYC expression0 (none)74 (41.1)
1 (weak)54 (30.0)
2 (moderate)41 (22.8)
3 (strong)11 (6.1)
Table 2 Correlation among fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 amplification, MYC expression and clinicopathological features1
VariablesFGFR1, n (%)
MYC, n (%)
No amplificationAmplificationP valueNo expressionExpressionP value
Age (yr)
≤ 6030/44 (68.2)14/44 (31.8)0.05818/46 (39.1)28/46 (60.9)0.862
> 60106/129 (82.2)23/129 (17.8)56/134 (41.8)78/134 (58.2)
Smoking
No21/28 (75)7/28 (25)0.61912/28 (42.9)6/28 (57.1)0.836
Yes115/145 (79.3)30/145 (20.7)61/151 (40.4)90/151 (59.6)
Histological grade
WD29/34 (85.3)5/34 (14.7)0.35017/35 (48.6)18/35 (51.4)0.267
MD90/117 (76.9)27/117 (23.1)43/119 (36.1)76/119 (63.9)
PD11/16 (68.8)5/16 (31.2)10/18 (55.6)8/18 (44.4)
Others6/6 (100)0/6 (0)4/8 (50)4/8 (50)
Localization
Upper6/7 (85.7)1/7 (14.3)0.9814/7 (57.1)3/7 (42.9)0.688
Middle34/42 (81)8/42 (19)20/44 (45.5)24/44 (54.5)
Lower86/111 (77.5)25/111 (22.5)45/116 (38.8)71/116 (61.2)
EGJ8/10 (80)2/10 (20)4/10 (40)6/10 (60)
T
166/80 (82.5)14/80 (17.5)0.60222/81 (27.2)59/81 (72.8)< 0.001
212/16 (75)4/16 (25)6/17 (35.3)11/17 (64.7)
355/73 (75.3)18/73 (24.7)43/78 (55.1)35/78 (44.9)
43/4 (75)1/4 (25)3/4 (75)1/4 (24)
N
073/90 (81.1)17/90 (18.9)0.46030/92 (32.6)62/92 (67.4)0.023
1-363/83 (75.9)20/83 (24.1)44/88 (50)44/88 (50)
Stage
I51/62 (82.3)11/62 (17.7)0.69418/63 (28.6)45/64 (71.4)< 0.001
II40/52 (76.9)12/52 (23.1)17/53 (32.1)36/53 (67.9)
III45/59 (76.3)14/59 (23.7)39/64 (60.9)25/64 (39.1)
Table 3 Correlation of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 and MYC amplification status between the tumors of the primary and the metastatic lymph nodes, n (%)
Metastatic lymph nodes
TotalP value
No amplificationAmplification
FGFR1 Primary tumorNo amplification42 (91.3)3 (6.7)45 (100)< 0.001
Amplification4 (36.4)7 (63.6)11 (100)
Total46 (82.1)10 (17.9)56 (100)
MYC Primary tumorNo amplification17 (63.0)10 (37.0)27 (100)1.000
Amplification12 (60.0)8 (40.0)20 (100)
Total29 (61.7)18 (38.3)47 (100)
Table 4 Multivariate analysis for overall survival in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
VariablesCategoryWhole cohort
No adjuvant chemo- and/or radiotherapy
Adjuvant chemo- and/or radiotherapy
HR (95%CI)P valueHR (95%CI)P valueHR (95%CI)P value
Age (yr) ≤ 60 vs > 601.805 (1.102-2.955)0.0192.371 (1.088- 5.167)0.0301.81 (0.896-3.656)0.098
T1, 2, 3, 4-0.005-0.091-0.009
1 vs 21.204 (0.523-2.773)0.6631.589 (0.591-4.269)0.3581.260 (0.251-6.324)0.779
1 vs 32.373 (1.454-3.872)0.0012.115 (1.126-3.973)0.0204.136 (1.691-10.119)0.002
1 vs 41.902 (0.550-6.575)0.3100.632 (0.078-5.130)0.6674.256 (0.820-22.092)0.085
N0 vs 1-31.981 (1.275-3.077)0.0022.351 (1.338-4.133)0.0030.319 (0.125-0.814)0.017
FGFR1 amplificationNone vs Amplification0.532 (0.302-0.937)0.0290.301 (0.117-0.774)0.0130.830 (0.386-1.783)0.633
MYC expressionNone vs Expression0.993 (0.636-1.550)0.9750.873 (0.478-1.595)0.6591.566 (0.811-3.024)0.181