4.7 Article

Expression of Lipid Metabolism-Related Proteins Differs between Invasive Lobular Carcinoma and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms18010232

关键词

breast cancer; invasive lobular carcinoma; invasive ductal carcinoma; lipid metabolism

资金

  1. National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [1420080]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, International Cooperation Research (ICT), and Future Planning [2015R1A1A1A05001209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We comparatively investigated the expression and clinical implications of lipid metabolism-related proteins in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. A total of 584 breast cancers (108 ILC and 476 IDC) were subjected to tissue microarray and immunohistochemical analysis for lipid metabolism-related proteins including hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL), perilipin A, fatty acid binding protein (FABP) 4, carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT)-1, acyl-CoA oxidase 1, and fatty acid synthetase (FASN). HSL, perilipin A, and FABP4 expression (all p < 0.001) differed significantly: HSL and FABP4 were more frequently present in ILC, whereas perilipin A was more frequently detected in IDC. Among all invasive cancers, HSL and FABP4 were highly expressed in luminal A-type ILC (p < 0.001) and perilipin A in luminal A-type IDC (p = 0.007). Among luminal B-type cancers, HSL and FABP4 were more highly expressed in ILC (p < 0.001). Univariate analysis found associations of shorter disease-free survival with CPT-1 positivity (p = 0.004) and acyl-CoA oxidase 1 positivity (p = 0.032) and of shorter overall survival with acyl-CoA oxidase 1 positivity (p = 0.027). In conclusion, ILC and IDC exhibited different immunohistochemical lipid metabolism-related protein expression profiles. Notably, ILC exhibited high HSL and FABP4 and low perilipin A expression.

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

4.7
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