For patients with SLM from CRCs, some are concurrent with RLNM as well as others directly develop to SLM without involving RLNM. in main CRCs with SLM were significantly higher than that in main colorectal carcinomas without liver metastases (all Pvalue 0.05) but had little influence on SLM without involvement of lymph node metastasis (all value 0.05). Comparison their expression between main ITK Inhibitor tumors and matched metastases, major concordance and minor difference existed. Conclusions: HGF and Met may exert functions in the development of SLM when concurrent with lymph node metastases but experienced little influence on SLM without lymph node metastasis, further indicating their functions and potential values for any subtype of colorectal malignancy metastasis. Major concordance and minor difference exist between main tumors and matched metastases, which further provides evidence for evaluating the response to their inhibitors based on main tumors or metastases. were used to extract RNA. For all those samples, valueMann-WhitneyKruscal Wallis testKruscal Wallis testZ=-0.470Chi-square=11.574Chi-square=9.808P=0.734P=0.003P=0.007Met expression in main tumors of different groupsWeakvalueMann-WhitneyKruscal Wallis testKruscal Wallis testZ=-1.102Chi-square=14.430Chi-square=15.54P=0.436P=0.001P=0.004 Open in a separate window SLM: primary colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis; LN: main colorectal malignancy with regional metastasis; PT: main colorectal cancer without any metastasis. Met immunoreactivity was observed in the and plasma of em tumor cells /em . It experienced correlation with lymph node stage (r=0.381, P=0.000). The intensity of Met expression in main tumors with N2 stage showed stronger than those with N1 and N0 stage. Its expression in main tumors showed in Table ?Table2.2. In the subgroup of TxN0M1 versus TxN0M0, Met expression showed positive in ITK Inhibitor 89%(8/9) of main tumors with SLM and 67%(6/9) of main tumors without metastases. It didn’t reached significant (p=0.436, table ?table2).2). In the other subgroup of 21 matches, Met expression (positive and negative) in main tumors showed different (P=0.001, Table ?Table2).2). The intensity of Met expression in main tumors of TxN1-2M1 and TxN1-2M0 showed stronger than that in main tumors without any metastases. There were no significant difference between main tumors of TxN1-2M1 and TxN1-2M0. In the total three groups, it (recognized to be positive and unfavorable) showed positive in 90%(27/30)of main tumors in SLM group, 86%(18/21) of main tumors in LN group and 50%(15/30) of main tumors in PT group. The results reached significance (p=0.004, collection11 of Table ?Table2).2). A, D and F of Physique ?Figure22 respectively showed strong, moderate and weak in a matched pairs of three patients. Open in a separate window Physique 2 Met expression. A, D and F were main tumors from a matched group. A: showing mediate positive (2+); D and ITK Inhibitor F exhibiting poor staining (1+). A, B and C from your same patient of T3N2M1 were respectively main tumor, lymph node metastasis and liver metastasis and showed concordance (all positive, A and C showing 2+ while B showing 3+). D and E from your same patient of T3N2M0 were respectively main tumor and lymph node metastasis and showed discordance, D showing weak expression(1+, unfavorable) and E showing strong staining (3+, positive). (Initial magnification 200). Expression of HGF and Met between main tumors and matched metastasis Table ?Table33 and Table ?Table44 showed HGF and Met expression in primary tumors and matched metastasis, which showed major concordance. In 42 pairs of main tumors and matched lymph node metastases, 35 patients (83%) for HGF and 37 cases (88%) for Met showed concordance. In 30 pairs of main tumors and liver metastases, 25 cases (83%) for HGF and 24 cases (80%) for Met showed concordance. In 21 cases with main tumors, corresponding lymph node metastases and liver metastases, 17 cases (81%) showed concordance for HGF and 16 cases (76%) for Met (Table ?(Table3).3). A, B and C of Fig ?Fig11 and Figure ?Figure22 came from the same patient of POLD4 T3N2M1, which respectively primary tumor, lymph node metastasis and liver metastasis and showed concordance. Table 3 Expression of HGF and Met between main tumors and corresponding Metastases (21 pairs with Main, LN and liver; 30 pairs of primary tumor and liver, 42 pairs of PT and LN). thead valign=”top” th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ T /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ RN /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ L /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ cases /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ T /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ L /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ cases /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ T /th th rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ RN /th th colspan=”2″ rowspan=”1″ cases /th /thead HGF expression between main tumors and corresponding metastasesNNN3NN7NN11NPN3NP2NP7PPN1PN3PN0PPP14PP18PP24Concordance: 17cases17/2125.