4.3 Article

Increased Expression of the Glucose Transporter Type 1 Gene Is Associated With Worse Overall Survival in Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 974-979

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000580

关键词

FDG-PET; GLUT-1; overall survival; pancreatic cancer; prognosis

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute/US Public Health Service [1RO1 CA-129227-01A1]
  2. DeBartolo Family

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: There is currently no reliable method to predict the risk of relapse after curative resection of early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Increased glucose metabolism observed on F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) by malignant cells, the Warburg effect, is a well-known characteristic of the malignant phenotype. We investigated the role of glucose transporter type 1 (GLUT-1) gene expression, a glucose cell plasma membrane transporter, in early-stage pancreatic cancer. Methods: Associations between GLUT-1 gene expression with PET maximum standardized uptake values and histologic grade were investigated in early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. Multivariate analysis was conducted to determine predictors of prognosis. Cox proportional hazard model was used for survival analysis. Results: Sixty-three patients had GLUT-1 gene analysis performed, and 50 patients had both GLUT-1 analysis and PET scan. Patients with high GLUT-1 gene expression had a decreased overall survival by univariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard model (hazard ratio, 2.82; P = 0.001) and remained significant on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 2.54; P = 0.03). There was no correlation of GLUT-1 gene expression with histologic grade or PET maximum standardized uptake values. Conclusions: Increased GLUT-1 gene expression was associated with a decreased overall survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This supports increased GLUT-1 gene expression as a potential prognostic marker in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

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

4.3
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