4.6 Article

Prognostic value of glycolysis markers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis

期刊

AGING-US
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 7284-7299

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC

关键词

glycolysis marker; prognosis; HNSCC; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81870769]
  2. Guangdong Financial Fund for High-Caliber Hospital Construction [174-2018-XMZC-0001-03-0125/D-05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The higher expression levels of glycolysis markers, including GLUT1, MCT4, HK2, and PKM2, are associated with poorer overall survival and disease-free survival in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients. These markers could serve as potential prognostic predictors and therapeutic targets in the management of HNSCC.
Glycolysis markers including glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1), monocarboxylate transporter 4 (MCT4), hexokinase 2 (HK2), pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2) and glucose transporter 4 (GLUT4) play vital roles in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, their prognostic value in HNSCC is still controversial. In this meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases and included thirty-seven studies (3272 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Higher expression levels of the glycolysis markers in tumor tissues correlated with poorer overall survival (OS; P < 0.001), disease-free survival (DFS; P = 0.03) and recurrence-free survival (RFS; P < 0.001) of HNSCC patients. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher expression levels of GLUT1 (P < 0.001), MCT4 (P = 0.002), HK2 (P = 0.002) and PKM2 (P < 0.001) correlated with poorer OS among HNSCC patients. Higher expression of MCT4 (P < 0.001) and PKM2 (P = 0.008) predicted poorer DFS among HNSCC patients. However, GLUT4 expression levels did not associate with clinical outcomes in HNSCC patients. These results demonstrate that glycolysis markers, such as GLUT1, MCT4, HK2 and PKM2, are potential prognostic predictors and therapeutic targets in HNSCC.

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