Relationship between phenotypes of cell-function differentiation and pathobiological behavior of gastric carcinomas

doi:10.3748/wjg.v7.i1.53

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 7, Issue 1

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (2561)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-12) series, Tables (1-13) series.

Item

Count

PDF

218

HTML

2061

Figures (1-12)

146

Tables (1-13)

136

Sum=2561

Feb 15, 2001 (publication date) through Apr 16, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (25)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Original Articles

World J Gastroenterol. Feb 15, 2001; 7(1): 53-59
Published online Feb 15, 2001. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v7.i1.53

Table 1 Standards of cell-function classification of gastric carcinoma

Type	Brush border enzyme		Mucin			Immunohistochemistry
Type	AKP	LAP	HID	ABpH2.5	PAS	Ch-A	Keratin
AFDT	+	+	-	-	-	-	-
MSFDT	-	-	+	+	+	-	-
ANOFDT	+	+	+	+	+	-	-
SFDT	-	-	-	-	-	+	+^*
NFDT	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

*Chosen according to practice.

Table 2 Relationship between cell function classification and age of patients with gastric carcinoma

Type	n	Age
Type	n	< 45 yrs (%)	45-65 yrs (%)	> 65 yrs (%)
AFDT	82	6 (7.3)	59 (72.0)	17 (20.7)
MSFDT	54	2 (3.7)	43 (79.6)	9 (14.7)
AMPFDT	180	31 (17.2)^a	118 (65.5)	31 (17.2)
SFDT	13	1 (7.7)	9 (69.2)	3 (23.1)
NFDT	32	6 (18.8)	17 (53.1)	9 (28.1)
Total	361	46 (12.7)	246 (68.1)	69 (19.1)

^aP < 0.05 (χ² = 4.5575), vs AFDT of the patients below 45 years old.

Table 3 Relationship between cell-function classification and sex of patients with gastric carcinoma

Type	n	Female (%)		Male (%)
Type	n	n	%	n	%
AFDT	82	16	(19.5)	66	(80.5)
MSFDT	54	15	(27.8)	39	(72.2)
AMPFDT	180	62	(34.4)^a	118	(65.6)
SFDT	13	3	(23.1)	10	(76.9)
NFDT	32	7	(21.9)	25	(78.1)
Total	361	103	(28.5)	258	(71.5)

^aP < 0.05 (χ² = 6.0079), vs AFDT of female patients.

Table 4 Relationship between cell-function and WHO’s histological classifications of gastric carcinoma

Types	n	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
Papillary adenocarcinoma	37	29 (78.4)^a	2 (5.4)	6 (16.2)	0	0
Tubular adenocarcinoma
Well-diff. ade.	20	17 (85.0)	0	2 (10.0)	0	1 (5.0)
Mode. diff. ade.	59	20 (33.9)	5 (8.5)	27 (45.8)	1 (1.7)	6 (10.2)
Poor. diff. ade.	126	15 (11.9)	14 (11.1)	79 (62.7)	2 (1.6)	16 (12.7)
Undiff. car.	30	1 (3.3)	7 (23.3)	13 (43.3)	0	9 (30.0)
SRC	41	0	5 (12.2)	6 (87.8)^b	0	0
Mucous ade.	38	0	21 (55.3)	17 (44.7)	0	0
Carcinoid	9	0	0	0	9 (100.0)	0
Squamous car.	1	0	0	0	1 (100.0)	0
Total	361	82 (22.7)	54 (15.0)	180 (49.9)	13 (3.6)	32 (8.9)

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 28.6784), vs others of the papillary adenocarcinomas;

^bP < 0.01 (χ² = 46.8780), vs others of signetring cell carcinomas. ade: Adenocarcinoma; diff.: Differentiated; mode.: Moderately; undiff.: Undifferentiated; SRC: Signet ring cell carcinoma

Table 5 Relationship between cell-function and Lauren£§s classifications of gastric carcinoma

Types	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
Intestinal	124 (36.4)	69 (84.1)^a	11 (20.4)	33 (18.3)	11 (84.6)^b	0
Diffuse	237 (63.6)	13 (15.9)	43 (79.6)	147 (81.7)	2 (15.4)	32 (100.0)
Total	361	82	54	180	13	32

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 102.6339), vs AMPFDT;

^bP < 0.01 (χ² = 15.11320), vs AMPFDT.

Table 6 Relationship between cell-function classification and histological growth patterns of gastric carcinomas

Patterns	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
Mass	19 (6.1)	12 (19.4)	0	0	7 (53.8)	0
Nest	84 (27.0)	37 (59.7)	12 (22.2)	23 (14.8)	6 (46.2)	6 (22.2)
Diffuse	208 (66.9)	13 (21.0)^a	42 (77.8)	132 (85.2)	0	21 (77.8)
Total	311	62 (19.9)	54 (17.4)	155 (49.8)	13 (4.2)	27 (8.7)

^aP < 0.01 (Exact test: χ² = 12.2793), vs MSFDT, AMPFDT and NFDT.

Table 7 Relationship between cell-function classification and clinicopathological stages of gastric carcinomas

Stages	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
EGC	50 (13.9)	20 (24.4)	0	25 (13.9)	0	5 (15.6)
AGC
Subserosa	42 (11.6)	8 (9.8)	1 (1.9)	28 (25.6)	1 (7.7)	4 (12.5)
Through serosa	269 (74.5)	54 (65.9)	53 (98.1)^a	127 (70.6)	12 (92.3)	23 (71.9)
Total	361	82	54	180	13	32

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 10.1203, 8.9078 and 6.7487 respectively), vs AFDT, AMPFDT and NFDT.

Table 8 Relationship between cell-function classification and ER expression of gastric carcinomas

ER expression	AFDT	MSFDT	AMPFDT	SFDT	NFDT	Total
Positive/examined	7/82	12/54	129/180	0/13	7/32	155/361
Positive rate (%)	8.5	22.2	71.7^a	21.9	42.9

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 45.6418), vs others.

Table 9 Relationship between cell-function classification and CD44v6 expression in gastric carcinoma tissues

CD44v6	n	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
-	241	44	32	132	9	24
+ (%)	120 (33.2)	38 (46.3)^a	22 (40.7)^b	48 (26.7)	4 (30.8)	8 (25.0)
Total	361	82	54	180	13	32

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 9.8900), vs AMPFDT;

^bP < 0.05 (χ² = 3.9245), vs AMPFDT.

Table 10 Relationship between cell-function classification and metastases of gastric carcinomas

Types	n (%)	AFDT (%)	MSFDT (%)	AMPFDT (%)	SFDT (%)	NFDT (%)
No mets	111 (30.7)	28 (34.1)	13 (24.1)	51 (28.3)	6 (46.2)	13 (40.6)
LN mets	224 (62.0)	45 (54.9)	38 (70.4)	116 (64.4)	6 (46.2)	19 (59.4)
Liver mets	12 (3.3)	9 (11.0)^a	1 (1.9)	1 ( 0.6)	1 (7.7)	0
Ovary mets	14 (3.9)	0	2 (3.7)	12 (6.7)	0	0
Total	361	82 (22.7)	54 (15.0)	180 (49.9)	13 (3.6)	32 (8.9)

^aP < 0.05 (Exact test: χ² = 5.4385), vs AMPFDT. Mets: Metastasis; LN: Lymph node.

Table 11 Relationship among cell-function classification, metastasis and sex of patients with gastric carcinoma

Types	Liver metastasis		Ovary metastasis
Types	Male (%)	Female (%)	Ovary metastasis
AFDT	9/66 (13.6)^a	0/16	0/16
MSFDT	0/39	1/15 (6.7)	2/15 (13.3)
AMPFDT	1/118 (0.8)	0/62	12/62 (19.4)^b
SFDT	1/10 (10.0)	0/3	0/3
NFDT	0/25	0/7	0/7
Total	11/258 (4.3)	1/103 (1.0)	14/103 (13.6)

^aP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 8.9527), vs AMPFDT of the male with liver metastasis;

^bP < 0.05 (Exact test χ² = 4.2992), vs AFDT, SFDT and NFDT of the female with ovary metastasis.

Table 12 Comparison of cell-function differentiation classification and molecular biological features of gastric carcinoma with liver or ovary metastases

Comparison	GC with liver mets.	GC with ovary mets.
Comparison	Positive/12 cases (%)	Positive/14 cases (%)
Cell-function differentiation types
AFDT	9 (75.0)^a	0
MSFDT	1 (8.3)	2 (14.3)
AMPFDT	1 (8.3)	12 (85.7)^b
SFDT	1 (8.3)	0
NFDT	0	0
Comparison of molecular biological features
Estrogen-dependent ER (+)	0	12 (85.7)^c
LN (+) BM structure (+)	12 (100.0)	0
Mutant p53 protein (+)	10 (83.3)^d	3 (21.4)
DNA ploidy:Diploid	3 (25.0)	10 (71.4)
Tetraploid	0	2 (14.3)
Aneuploid	9 (75.0)^e	2 (14.3)
CD44v6 expression (+)	10 (83.3)^f	0

LN: Laminin; BM: Basement membrane; Mets: Metastasis

^aP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 12.9160), vs AFDT with ovary mets;

^bP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 12.5357), vs AMPFDT with liver mets;

^cP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 15.8087), vs GC with liver mets;

^dP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 7.5833), vs GC with ovary mets;

^eP < 0.01 (Exact test χ² = 6.0420), vs GC with ovary mets;

^fP < 0.05 (Exact test χ² = 15.6010), vs GC with ovary mets.

Table 13 Relationship between postoperative survival rates and cell function classification of gastric carcinomas

Types	n	Cases survived over 5 years (%)
AFDT	82	48	(58.5)^a
MSFDT	49	14	(28.6)
AMPFDT	174	43	(24.7)
SFDT	5	3	(60.0)
NFDT	32	9	(28.1)
Total	342	117 (34.2)

^aP < 0.01 (χ² = 11.0478, 28.7138 and 10.3250), vs MSFDT, AMPFDT and NFDT, respectively.

Citation: Xin Y, Li XL, Wang YP, Zhang SM, Zheng HC, Wu DY, Zhang YC. Relationship between phenotypes of cell-function differentiation and pathobiological behavior of gastric carcinomas. World J Gastroenterol 2001; 7(1): 53-59
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v7/i1/53.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v7.i1.53