BACKGROUND: Due to proliferation and increased metabolism, cancer cells have high glucose requirements. The glucose uptake of cells is influenced by a group of membrane proteins denoted the glucose transporter family (Glut-1 to -12). Whereas increased expression and a negative correlation with survival have been described for Glut-1 in several types of cancer, the impact of other glucose transporters on tumor biology is widely unknown. METHODS: In this retrospective study, gastric cancer specimens of 150 patients who underwent total gastrectomy between 2005 and 2010 were stained for Glut-1, -3, -6, and -10 by immunohistochemistry. Expression of Glut-1, -3, -6, and 10 was correlated to prognosis as well as clinical and pathological parameters. RESULTS: Glut-1, Glut-3, Glut-6, and Glut-10 were expressed in 22.0, 66.0, 38.0, and 43.3 % of the analyzed samples. Whereas Glut-1, -6, and -10 did not show a correlation with prognosis, positive staining for Glut-3 was associated with higher UICC stage and inferior prognosis. The mean overall survival was 38.6 months for Glut-3 positive patients, as compared to 51.2 months for Glut-3 negative patients (p < 0.05). Coexpression of two or more of the analyzed glucose transporters was correlated to inferior prognosis. Glut-3 and UICC stage were significant prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: All of the analyzed glucose transporters were expressed in a significant proportion of the gastric cancer samples. Glut-3 was associated with higher UICC stage and inferior prognosis. These findings are relevant to therapeutic approaches that target glucose metabolism as well as to imaging using radioactively labeled glucose.
BACKGROUND: Due to proliferation and increased metabolism, cancer cells have high glucose requirements. The glucose uptake of cells is influenced by a group of membrane proteins denoted the glucose transporter family (Glut-1 to -12). Whereas increased expression and a negative correlation with survival have been described for Glut-1 in several types of cancer, the impact of other glucose transporters on tumor biology is widely unknown. METHODS: In this retrospective study, gastric cancer specimens of 150 patients who underwent total gastrectomy between 2005 and 2010 were stained for Glut-1, -3, -6, and -10 by immunohistochemistry. Expression of Glut-1, -3, -6, and 10 was correlated to prognosis as well as clinical and pathological parameters. RESULTS:Glut-1, Glut-3, Glut-6, and Glut-10 were expressed in 22.0, 66.0, 38.0, and 43.3 % of the analyzed samples. Whereas Glut-1, -6, and -10 did not show a correlation with prognosis, positive staining for Glut-3 was associated with higher UICC stage and inferior prognosis. The mean overall survival was 38.6 months for Glut-3 positive patients, as compared to 51.2 months for Glut-3 negative patients (p < 0.05). Coexpression of two or more of the analyzed glucose transporters was correlated to inferior prognosis. Glut-3 and UICC stage were significant prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: All of the analyzed glucose transporters were expressed in a significant proportion of the gastric cancer samples. Glut-3 was associated with higher UICC stage and inferior prognosis. These findings are relevant to therapeutic approaches that target glucose metabolism as well as to imaging using radioactively labeled glucose.
Authors: Denise A Chan; Patrick D Sutphin; Phuong Nguyen; Sandra Turcotte; Edwin W Lai; Alice Banh; Gloria E Reynolds; Jen-Tsan Chi; Jason Wu; David E Solow-Cordero; Muriel Bonnet; Jack U Flanagan; Donna M Bouley; Edward E Graves; William A Denny; Michael P Hay; Amato J Giaccia Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Hakan Alakus; Mert Batur; Matthias Schmidt; Uta Drebber; Stephan E Baldus; Daniel Vallböhmer; Klaus L Prenzel; Ralf Metzger; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Arnulf H Hölscher; Stefan P Mönig Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Daniel Baumunk; Uta Reichelt; Jannis Hildebrandt; Hans Krause; Jan Ebbing; Hannes Cash; Kurt Miller; Martin Schostak; Steffen Weikert Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sophie Vasseur; Samia Afzal; Joël Tardivel-Lacombe; David S Park; Juan Lucio Iovanna; Tak Wah Mak Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alejandro Godoy; Viviana Ulloa; Federico Rodríguez; Karin Reinicke; Alejandro J Yañez; María de los Angeles García; Rodolfo A Medina; Mónica Carrasco; Sofía Barberis; Tamara Castro; Fernando Martínez; Ximena Koch; Juan Carlos Vera; María Teresa Poblete; Carlos D Figueroa; Bruno Peruzzo; Fernando Pérez; Francisco Nualart Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: Anna Krzeslak; Katarzyna Wojcik-Krowiranda; Ewa Forma; Paweł Jozwiak; Hanna Romanowicz; Andrzej Bienkiewicz; Magdalena Brys Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: Andreas M Hoff; Sigrid M Kraggerud; Sharmini Alagaratnam; Kaja C G Berg; Bjarne Johannessen; Maren Høland; Gro Nilsen; Ole C Lingjærde; Peter W Andrews; Ragnhild A Lothe; Rolf I Skotheim Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 5.678