Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison and differences between GAS and UEA regarding stage, age, lymph-vascular permeation, lymph node status and local/distant metastases at the time of diagnosis. All data presented as count (percent), unless otherwise specified

From: A retrospective study on incidence, diagnosis, and clinical outcome of gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma in a single institution

 

GAS

N = 5

UEA

N = 19

P-Value

FIGO

 I

2 (40)

11 (57.9)

0.31a

 II

1 (20)

8 (42.1)

 III

2 (40)

–

 IV

–

–

Age (years), mean ± SD

61.6 ± 16.5

44.3 ± 9.0

0.015a

Tumor Size (cm), mean ± SD

3.8 ± 0.8

1.9 ± 1.2

0.004a

LVI

 Present

3 (60)

3 (15.8)

0.079b

 Not Present

2 (40)

12 (63.2)

 Unknown

–

4 (21.1)

Regional Lymph Node Mets

 Present

1 (20)

2 (10.5)

0.52b

 Not Present

4 (80)

14 (73.7)

 Unknown

–

3 (15.8)

Abdominal Spread

3 (60)

–

0.0049

Other Mets

2 (40)

–

0.0362

Recurrence

 Yes

3 (60)

7 (36.8)

0.63b

 No

2 (40)

10 (52.3)

 Unknown

–

2 (10.5)

P16

 Positive

–

16 (84.2)

0.043c

 Negative

5 (100)

0 (0)

 Unknown

–

3 (15.8)

MUC-6

 Positive

5 (100)

–

< 0.0001c

 Negative

–

17 (89.5)

 Unknown

–

2 (10.5)

P53

 Positive

3 (60)

–

0.0049c

 Negative

2 (40)

17 (89.4)

 Unknown

–

2 (11.6)

  1. a – Mann Whitney U test,
  2. b – Fisher Exact comparing Present vs Not Present or Unknown,
  3. c – Fisher Exact comparing Positive vs Negative or Unknown,
Back to article page

Diagnostic Pathology

ISSN: 1746-1596

Contact us