Table 1.
Chi-square test results for ALDH1 and CD44 expression score based on the staining area and intensity of color reaction.
Fig 1.
Examples of immunohistochemical staining for ALDH1 in endometrial lesions.
(A) Immunohistochemical examination of ALDH1 expression in normal endometrium (a), EH without atypia (b), AH (c), grade 1 EmAC (d), grade 2 EmAC (e), grade 3 EmAC (f), SC (g), CC (h), and MC (i). (B) Semiquantitative Comparison of ALDH1 Immunostaining Scores Between Normal Endometrium, EH without Atypia, AH, and Type I, and Type II EC. Normal endometrium vs. Type I EC, p<0.001***; EH without atypia vs. Type I EC, p<0.001***; AH vs. Type I EC, p<0.05*.
Fig 2.
Examples of immunohistochemical staining for CD44 in endometrial lesions.
(A) Immunohistochemical examination of CD44 expression in normal endometrium (a), EH without atypia (b), AH(c), grade 1 EmAC (d), grade 2 EmAC (e), G3 EmAC (f), SC (g), CC (h), and MC (i). (B) Semiquantitative Comparison of CD44 Immunostaining Scores Between Normal Endometrium, EH without Atypia, AH, and Type I, and Type II EC. One-way ANOVA, p = 0.229.
Table 2.
Correlation of ALDH1 and CD44 expression score with clinicopathological features in endometrial carcinoma.
Table 3.
Correlation of combination of ALDH1 and CD44 expression score with clinicopathological features in endometrial carcinoma.
Fig 3.
Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival in patients with EC based on ALDH1 and CD44 protein immunostaining.
Patients with a higher ALDH1 (A), CD44 (B), combine ALDH1 and CD44 (C) immunostaining score had poor overall survival compared with those with a lower immunostaining score in patients with EC.
Table 4.
Multivariate survival analysis of clinicopathological factors in 92 EC patients.