Table 1 The relationship between FAAH expression and clinicopathological characteristics of GC patients.

Characteristics	No.	FAAH	U value	p value
Characteristics	No.	Median (IQR 25–75)	U value	p value
Gender			580.0	0.016*
Male	72	1.842 (0.513–8.246)
Female	24	6.074 (2.111–11.44)
Age (year)			746.0	0.426
≥60	73	2.836 (0.731–9.243)
<60	23	2.096 (0.370–9.193)
Tumour size (cm)			719.0	0.002**
≥5	58	4.486 (1.164–13.01)
<5	41	0.918 (0.425–3.990)
Invasion depth			507.5	<0.001***
Infiltration into Serous layer	62	4.104 (1.344–13.17)
Without Infiltration into Serous layer	34	0.630 (0.333–3.560)
WHO classification			/	/
Adenocarcinoma NOS	38	1.179 (0.576–4.041)		/
Adenocarcinoma SignetRing	9	9.193 (2.152–22.67)		0.143^a
Adenocarcinoma Tubular	19	9.129 (4.161–27.02)		<0.001^b***
Adenocarcinoma Papillary	6	10.54 (1.494–13.67)		0.836^c
Adenocarcinoma Mucinous	13	0.810 (0.341–1.923)		0.998^d
Other	11	2.921 (0.593–13.05)		0.340^e
Lauren classification			/	/
Intestinal type carcinoma	41	5.712 (1.159–12.96)		0.091^f
Diffuse gastric carcinoma	40	1.123 (0.479–8.050)		0.400^g
Other	15	2.096 (0.881–4.161)		0.963^h
Differentiation			829.5	0.165
Poorly	65	2.687 (0.830–11.16)
Moderately	31	2.785 (0.241–8.838)
Lymph node metastasis			618.0	0.002**
Yes	65	3.934 (0.982–11.99)
No	31	0.850 (0.350–4.810)
H. pylori status			769.5	0.108
Positive	67	3.565 (0.810–11.72)
Negative	29	1.401 (0.579–6.799)

Statistical analysis was carried out using Mann–Whitney U test. One-way ANOVA was used when multiple sample comparisons were involved, ^aAdenocarcinoma SignetRing vs. Adenocarcinoma NOS, ^bAdenocarcinoma Tubular vs. Adenocarcinoma NOS, ^cAdenocarcinoma Papillary vs. Adenocarcinoma NOS, ^dAdenocarcinoma Mucinous vs. Adenocarcinoma NOS, ^eOther vs. Adenocarcinoma NOS, ^fIntestinal type carcinoma vs. Diffuse gastric carcinoma, ^gIntestinal type carcinoma vs. Other, ^hDiffuse gastric carcinoma vs. Other.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. IQR interquartile range, NOS not otherwise specified.

Search