Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
The number of cases in lymph node negative patients was too small for this analysis (n = 2 in Recurrence group and N = 6 in Non-recurrence group).
Loss of 1p36.33-p35.3 and 11p15.5-p15.4 were found more often in Recurrence group, and loss of 4q13.1-q34.3 and gain of 19q12-q13.2 were found more in Non-recurrence group with borderline significance (p = 0.052) (Table 7).
Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests showed that the 2- and 5-year survival rates were significantly lower in the recurrence group than in non-recurrence group (67.6% vs. 88.0%, 31.8% vs. 79.9%, P < 0.001).
The density of peritumoral CD68+ TAMs in recurrence cases (9/11) and in dead cases (17/23) were significantly higher than those in non-recurrence cases (33/73) and in survival cases (25/61), with significant differences (P = 0.024 and 0.007, respectively).
Gains in 19p, 19q, 22q, 1p, 9q, and 17q and loss in 4q were found more often in the Non-recurrence group than in the Recurrence group.
The density of peritumoral TAMs was significantly higher in the recurrence group than in the non-recurrence group (P = 0.024) and higher in the death group than in the survival group (P = 0.007).
We selected patients with the following inclusion criteria: invasive ductal carcinoma, in cases of non-recurrence, patients had been followed-up for a minimum of 5 years of follow-up.
The majority of significant changes were toward loss in the Recurrence group or gain in the Non-recurrence group.
Clinically relevant background factors in the non-recurrence and recurrence group are shown in Table 1.
1p36 and 11p15, the most significant chromosomal location in overall analysis, were also found more in Recurrence group than Non-recurrence group with modest significance in lymph node positive patients.
The criteria to select candidate genes were as follows; (i) a higher expression level in cancer tissues than in non-cancerous mucosa, (ii) a significantly higher expression level in cancer cells of the recurrence group than in the non-recurrence group.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com