4.6 Article

GLUT-1 may predict metastases and death in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1094480

关键词

Glucose transporter-1 (GLUT-1); neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT); rectal cancer (RC); survival; metastasis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the prognostic role of glucose transporter-1 (GLUT-1) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The results showed that post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) GLUT-1 status was significantly correlated with worse distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS).
IntroductionGlucose transporter-1 (GLUT-1) has been studied as a possible predictor for survival outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). MethodsWe aimed to investigate the prognostic role of GLUT-1 in LARC using the data of 208 patients with clinical T3-4 stage and/or node-positive rectal adenocarcinoma, all of whom underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and subsequent total mesorectal excision (TME). Both pre-CRT and post-CRT specimens were immunohistologically stained for GLUT-1. Patients were classified into GLUT-1-positive and GLUT-1-negative groups and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed and compared. ResultsAt a median follow-up of 74 months, post-CRT GLUT-1 status showed a significant correlation with worse DMFS (p=0.027, HR 2.26) and OS (p=0.030, HR 2.30). When patients were classified into 4 groups according to yp stage II/III status and post-CRT GLUT-1 positivity [yp stage II & GLUT-1 (-), yp stage II & GLUT-1 (+), yp stage III & GLUT-1 (-), yp stage III & GLUT-1 (+)], the 5-year DMFS rates were 92.3%, 63.9%, 65.4%, and 46.5%, respectively (p=0.013). GLUT-1 (-) groups showed markedly better outcomes for both yp stage II and III patients compared to GLUT-1 (+) groups. A similar tendency was observed for OS. DiscussionIn conclusion, post-CRT GLUT-1 may serve as a prognostic marker in LARC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据