| Literature DB >> 24297035 |
Kunihiko Izuishi1, Yuka Yamamoto2, Hirohito Mori3, Riko Kameyama2, Shintaro Fujihara3, Tsutomu Masaki3, Yasuyuki Suzuki1.
Abstract
To elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the insufficient sensitivity in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by [18F] 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), the characteristics of glucose metabolism-related protein expression in HCC were examined in liver metastasis from colorectal cancer (Meta). Thirty-four patients (14 Meta and 20 HCC) who underwent FDG-PET and hepatectomy were studied. The relationships between the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) in tumors and the mRNA expression of glucose metabolism-related proteins [hexokinase (HK), glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1), and glucose-6-phosphatase (G6Pase)] and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) were examined in snap-frozen specimens with quantitative PCR. Tumor detection rates were lower in HCC (15/20) compared to Meta (13/14) patients. HK and GLUT1 expression was lower and G6Pase expression was higher in HCC compared to Meta. In particular, GLUT1 overexpression was 92-fold in Meta and 11-fold in HCC compared to the surrounding liver. The SUV correlated with GLUT1 and PCNA expression in HCC, but not Meta patients. Of note, four cases of poorly differentiated (P/D) HCC compared to moderately differentiated (M/D) HCC produced completely different results for FDG uptake (SUV, 14.4 vs. 4.0) and mRNA expression (G6Pase expression, 0.007 vs. 1.5). Variations in the expression of glucose metabolism-related enzymes between HCC and Meta patients are attributed to origin or degree of differentiation. Low FDG uptake in M/D HCC reflected low GLUT1 and high G6Pase expression, while high FDG accumulation in P/D HCC could reflect increased GLUT1 and decreased G6Pase expression. These results may explain why M/D HCC is not detected as sensitively by FDG-PET.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24297035 DOI: 10.3892/or.2013.2886
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Rep ISSN: 1021-335X Impact factor: 3.906