4.1 Article

LDHB and FABP4 are Associated With Progression and Poor Prognosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000306

Keywords

pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; chronic pancreatitis; pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia; FABP4; LDHB; immunohistochemistry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a fast-growth tumor with poor prognosis. The molecular events involving in the abnormal energy metabolism have been reported without being fully identified. This study investigated the expression of FABP4 and LDHB, 2 metabolism-associated molecules, in malignant and benign lesions of pancreas by immunohistochemical staining, and analyzed their clinical and pathologic significances. The results showed that FABP4 and LDHB protein were overexpressed in PDAC tumors compared with peritumoral tissues, benign pancreatic tissues, and normal pancreatic tissues (P < 0.01). The percentage of patients with FABP4 and LDHB protein overexpression was significantly higher in PDAC patients with lymph node metastasis, invasion, and tumour, node, metastasis stage III/IV disease than in patients without lymph node metastasis and invasion, and having tumour, node, metastasis stage I/II stage disease (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). Benign pancreatic lesions with positive FABP4 and LDHB protein expression exhibited dysplasia or intraepithelial neoplasia I and III grade. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that positive FABP4 and LDHB protein expression were associated with worse survival in PDAC patients (P < 0.05 or P < 0.001). Cox multivariate analysis revealed that positive FABP4 and LDHB protein expression were independent poor prognosis factors in PDAC patients. In conclusion, positive FABP4 and LDHB protein expression are associated with the progression and poor prognosis in patients with PDAC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available