43 20 26 0.36 17 29 0.61    ≦ 70 59 25 34   31 28   19 40      Gender                        female 21 6 15 0.40 15 6 0.036 12 Thiazovivin mouse 9 0.027    male 84 35 49   36 48   24 60   Histopathology (WHO)                        pap 12 3 9 0.20 5 7 0.34 5 7 0.99    tub1 15 2 13   5 10   5 10      tub2 27 11 16   13 14   10 17      por1 14 7 7   5 9   4 10      por2/sig 31 15 16   20 11   10 21      muc 6 3 3   3 3   2 4   Histopathology (2 groups)                      differentiated 54 16 38 0.042 23 31 0.21 20 34

0.54    undifferentiated 51 25 26   28 23   16 35   Depth of invasion                        T1b/2 32 4 28 < 0.001 14 18 0.51 12 20 0.65    T3/4 73 37 36   37 36   24 49   LN metastasis                        negative (N0) 35 8 27 0.028 16 19 0.68 15 20 0.19    positive (N1/2/3) 70 33 37   35 35   21 49   Distant metastasis or recurrence                      negative 68 19 49 0.002 33 35 0.99 27 41 0.17    positive 37 22 15   18 19   9 28   Stage     Selleckchem ARRY-438162                    I/II 53 14 39 0.007 24 29 0.50 19 34 0.73    III/IV 52 27 25   27 25   17 35   RKIP expression was associated with significantly longer RFS (p = 0.003), whereas p-MEK was not (p = 0.79). The presence of p-ERK expression was associated with slightly, but not significantly shorter RFS than the absence of such expression (p = 0.054) (Table 3). Patients with positive p-ERK and negative RKIP expression had significantly

shorter RFS than the other patients (p < 0.001) (Figure 2). The prognostic relevance of positive p-ERK expression combined with negative RKIP expression was therefore assessed using a Selleckchem 4EGI-1 Multivariate proportional-hazards model adjusted for established clinical prognostic factors (i.e., age, gender, histopathology, depth of invasion, lymph node involvement). Celecoxib The combination of RKIP and p-ERK expression was found to be an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95%

confidence interval [CI], 1.3 – 4.6; p = 0.008). Histopathological type and depth of invasion were also independent prognostic factors (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0 – 4.2; p = 0.043 and HR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.0-22; p = 0.048, respectively) (Table 3). Table 3 Prognostic factors in multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression models for RFS   Univariatea) Multivariate 1b) Multivariate 2c)   5-yr RFS d) p HR 95%CI p HR 95% CI p Age                    > 70 73                  ≦ 70 51 0.094             Gender                    female 74                  male 56 0.22             Histopathology                    differentiated 79   1.0     1.0        undifferentiated 42 0.001 2.2 1.1 – 4.4 0.035 2.1 1.0 – 4.2 0.043 Depth of invasion                    T1/2 93   1.0     1.0        T3/4 46 0.002 4.8 1.0 – 23 0.048 4.7 1.0 – 22 0.048 Lymph node metastasis                    negative (N0) 83   1.0     1.0        positive (N1/2/3) 48 0.002 1.6 0.59 – 4.5 0.34 1.6 0.