BACKGROUND: In cancer cells, metabolism is shifted to aerobic glycolysis with lactate production coupled with a higher uptake of glucose as the main energy source. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) catalyzes the reduction of pyruvate to form lactate, and serum level is often raised in aggressive cancer and hematological malignancies. We have assessed the prognostic value of LDH in solid tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of LDH with clinical outcome in solid tumors. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome, and cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were secondary outcomes. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled HRs were computed and weighted using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies comprising 22 882 patients, mainly with advanced disease, were included in the analysis. Median cut-off of serum LDH was 245 U/L. Overall, higher LDH levels were associated with a HR for OS of 1.7 (95% CI 1.62-1.79; p < 0.00001) in 73 studies. The prognostic effect was highest in renal cell, melanoma, gastric, prostate, nasopharyngeal and lung cancers (all p < 0.00001). HRs for PFS was 1.75 (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A high serum LDH level is associated with a poor survival in solid tumors, in particular melanoma, prostate and renal cell carcinomas, and can be used as a useful and inexpensive prognostic biomarker in metastatic carcinomas.
BACKGROUND: In cancer cells, metabolism is shifted to aerobic glycolysis with lactate production coupled with a higher uptake of glucose as the main energy source. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) catalyzes the reduction of pyruvate to form lactate, and serum level is often raised in aggressive cancer and hematological malignancies. We have assessed the prognostic value of LDH in solid tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of LDH with clinical outcome in solid tumors. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome, and cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were secondary outcomes. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled HRs were computed and weighted using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies comprising 22 882 patients, mainly with advanced disease, were included in the analysis. Median cut-off of serum LDH was 245 U/L. Overall, higher LDH levels were associated with a HR for OS of 1.7 (95% CI 1.62-1.79; p < 0.00001) in 73 studies. The prognostic effect was highest in renal cell, melanoma, gastric, prostate, nasopharyngeal and lung cancers (all p < 0.00001). HRs for PFS was 1.75 (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A high serum LDH level is associated with a poor survival in solid tumors, in particular melanoma, prostate and renal cell carcinomas, and can be used as a useful and inexpensive prognostic biomarker in metastatic carcinomas.
Authors: Hsin-Yu Chen; Peder E Z Larson; Robert A Bok; Cornelius von Morze; Renuka Sriram; Romelyn Delos Santos; Justin Delos Santos; Jeremy W Gordon; Naeim Bahrami; Marcus Ferrone; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: F Graziano; A Ruzzo; E Giacomini; T Ricciardi; G Aprile; F Loupakis; P Lorenzini; E Ongaro; F Zoratto; V Catalano; D Sarti; E Rulli; C Cremolini; M De Nictolis; G De Maglio; A Falcone; G Fiorentini; M Magnani Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Chien-Chun Steven Pai; John T Huang; Xiaoqing Lu; Donald M Simons; Chanhyuk Park; Anthony Chang; Whitney Tamaki; Eric Liu; Kole T Roybal; Jane Seagal; Mingyi Chen; Katsunobu Hagihara; Xiao X Wei; Michel DuPage; Serena S Kwek; David Y Oh; Adil Daud; Katy K Tsai; Clint Wu; Li Zhang; Marcella Fasso; Ravi Sachidanandam; Anitha Jayaprakash; Ingrid Lin; Amy-Jo Casbon; Gillian A Kinsbury; Lawrence Fong Journal: Immunity Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 31.745
Authors: Eli Muchtar; Angela Dispenzieri; Martha Q Lacy; Francis K Buadi; Prashant Kapoor; Suzanne R Hayman; Wilson Gonsalves; Rahma Warsame; Taxiarchis V Kourelis; Rajshekhar Chakraborty; Stephen Russell; John A Lust; Yi Lin; Ronald S Go; Steven Zeldenrust; David Dingli; Nelson Leung; S Vincent Rajkumar; Robert A Kyle; Shaji K Kumar; Morie A Gertz Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Emanuelle M Rizk; Angelina M Seffens; Megan H Trager; Michael R Moore; Larisa J Geskin; Robyn D Gartrell-Corrado; Winston Wong; Yvonne M Saenger Journal: Am J Clin Dermatol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.403