4.7 Article

Serum lactate dehydrogenase and survival following cancer diagnosis

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 113, Issue 9, Pages 1389-1396

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.361

Keywords

LDH; the Warburg effect; survival; prospective study

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
  2. King's College London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There is evidence that high level of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is associated with poorer overall survival in several malignancies, but its link to cancer-specific survival is unclear. Methods: A total of 7895 individuals diagnosed with cancer between 1986 and 1999 were selected for this study. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess overall and cancer-specific death by the z-score and clinical categories of serum LDH prospectively collected within 3 years before diagnosis. Site-specific analysis was performed for major cancers. Analysis was repeated by different lag times between LDH measurements and diagnosis. Results: At the end of follow-up, 5799 participants were deceased. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall and cancer-specific death in the multivariable model were 1.43 (1.31-1.56) and 1.46 (1.32-1.61), respectively, for high compared with low prediagnostic LDH. Site-specific analysis showed high LDH to correlate with an increased risk of death from prostate, pulmonary, colorectal, gastro-oesophageal, gynaecological and haematological cancers. Serum LDH assessed within intervals closer to diagnosis was more strongly associated with overall and cancer-specific death. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrated an inverse association of baseline serum LDH with cancer-specific survival, corroborating its role in cancer progression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available