4.6 Article

Increased Fatty Acid Synthase Activity in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Tissue Is a Weaker Predictor of Shorter Patient Survival than Increased Lipoprotein Lipase Activity

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 405-409

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2010.08.007

关键词

Fatty acid synthase; Lung cancer tissue; Enzyme activity; Gene expression; Survival analysis; Lipoprotein lipase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims. Cumulative evidence suggests the involvement of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in tumor growth. We tested the hypothesis that increased FAS activity and gene expression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tissue have a prognostic significance that is independent of that of increased lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity in the same tissue. Methods. Forty two consecutive patients with resected NSCLC were enrolled in the study. Paired samples of lung cancer tissue and adjacent non-cancer lung tissue were collected from resected specimens for estimation of FAS activity and expression of its gene. LPL activity had previously been measured in the same tissues. During a 4-year follow-up, 21 patients died due to tumor progression. One patient died due to a non-cancer reason and was not included in the analysis. Results. High FAS activity in cancerous tissue relative to that in the adjacent non-cancer lung tissue was associated with weight loss in the 3 months immediately before tumor excision and patient death during the follow-up. Higher FAS activity in the cancer tissue was associated with higher LPL activity in the same tissue, which also predicted shorter patient survival, but LPL was the stronger predictor. FAS gene expression was higher in the adjacent non-cancer tissue than in the cancer tissue but had no predictive value. Conclusion. Our study further underlines the involvement of cancer tissue FAS activity in tumor growth but also indicates its weaker importance compared to LPL activity. (C) 2010 IMSS. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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