| Literature DB >> 30521176 |
Minoru Kobayashi1, Toshitaka Uematsu2, Yuumi Tokura2, Kohei Takei2, Kazumasa Sakamoto2, Takahiro Narimatsu2, Akinori Nukui3, Takao Kamai2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Glucose is a major energy resource for tumor cell survival and growth, and its influx into cells is mainly carried out by facilitative glucose transporters (GLUTs). Sodium - dependent glucose transporters (SGLTs) have been highlighted as playing important roles in diabetic treatment. However, their potential roles in cancer remain unclear. We examined expression patterns of SGLTs in tumor tissues together with conventional pathological variables to determine prognostic significance in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Entities:
Keywords: Carcinoma, Renal; Glucose Transport Proteins, Facilitative; Immunohistochemistry
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30521176 PMCID: PMC6442141 DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0271
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Braz J Urol ISSN: 1677-5538 Impact factor: 1.541
Patient and tumor characteristics.
| Patients | n | |
|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 68 | |
| Age (mean, range) | 62.3 (40-84) | |
| Gender (male / female) | 51 / 17 | |
| Follow-up period (months) (median, range) | 43.9 (5.7-146) | |
|
| ||
| pT stage (T1 / T2 / T3 / T4) | 32 / 13 / 21 / 2 | |
| Histological grade (G1/G2/G3) | 5 / 48 / 10 | |
| Vascular invasion (v0 / v1) | 31 / 37 | |
| pN status (N0 / N1, 2) | 61 / 7 | |
| Metastasis (M0 / M1) | 48 / 20 | |
Figure 1Immunohistochemical staining of paired normal and RCC tissues for GLUT - 1 (a-1, 2, e-1, 2), GLUT - 2 (b-1, 2, f-1, 2), SGLT - 1 (c-1, 2, g-1, 2), and SGLT - 2 (d-1, 2, h-1, 2).
Immunostaining was mainly observed at the cell membrane in tumor cells. In the normal parenchyma, staining was detected predominantly at the cell membrane and in the cytoplasm of the proximal and distal renal tubules. Higher - magnification figures indicated the basolateral localization of GLUT and the luminal localization of SGLT. The original magnifications are x 100 (a - 1~h1) and x 400 (a - 2~h - 2).
Frequency of the sugar transporter expression according to staining intensity.
| transporters / intensity | GLUT-1 | GLUT-2 | SGLT-1 | SGLT-2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | N | T | N | T | N | T | N | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (1.5) | 22 (32.4) | 2 (2.9) |
| weak (1,2) | 0 | 37 (54.4) | 41 (60.3) | 31 (45.6) | 46 (67.6) | 33 (48.5) | 43 (63.2) | 34 (50.0) |
| strong (3,4) | 68 (100) | 31(45.6) | 27 (39.7) | 37 (54.4) | 22 (32.4) | 34 (50.0) | 3 (4.4) | 32 (47.1) |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.1218 | 0.0515 | <0.0001 | ||||
no. of cases (%)
T = tumor; N = normal
P-valus were determined by Fisher's exact test.
Univariate analysis for various potential prognostic factors in progression free and overall survival in non-metastatic diseases.
| Progression free survival | Overall survival | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. pts | HR | 95% CI | p-value | No. pts | HR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| Nuclear grade(1, 2 vs. 3) | 42 / 6 | 1.02 | 0.11- 9.17 | 0.9854 | 42 / 6 | 0.39 | 0.03 - 5.05 | 0.4719 |
| pT stage (1, 2 vs. 3) | 36 / 12 | 0.29 | 0.05 - 1.78 | 0.1669 | 36 / 12 | 0.23 | 0.02 - 2.96 | 0.2340 |
| pV (0 vs. 1) | 18 / 30 | 1.68 | 0.34 - 8.35 | 0.5197 | 18 / 30 | 0.98 | 0.09 - 10.82 | 0.9875 |
| GLUT-1 (low vs. high) | 28 / 20 | 0.43 | 0.08 - 2.40 | 0.3234 | 10 / 38 | 0.93 | 0.08 - 10.25 | 0.9505 |
| GLUT-2 (low vs. high) | 25 / 23 | 1.38 | 0.23 - 8.42 | 0.2244 | 25 / 23 | 0.56 | 0.03 - 8.98 | 0.6771 |
| SGLT-1 (low vs. high) | 12 / 36 | 3.03 | 0.51 - 18.14 | 0.2069 | 12 / 36 | 2.05 | 0.18 - 23.89 | 0.5578 |
| SGLT-2 (low vs. high) | 41 / 7 | 3.45 | 0.63 - 18.92 | 0.1355 | 42 / 6 | 0.06 | 0.004 - 0.99 | 0.0081 |
HR = hazard ratio; 95%CI = 95% confidential interval
Univariate analysis for various potential prognostic factors in overall survival in metastatic diseases.
| No. pts | HR | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nuclear grade (1, 2 vs. 3) | 11 / 9 | 0.70 | 0.21 - 2.31 | 0.5593 |
| pT stage (1, 2 vs. 3, 4) | 9 / 11 | 0.40 | 0.10 - 1.51 | 0.1615 |
| pV (0 vs. 1) | 3 / 17 | 2.33 | 0.29 - 18.42 | 0.4104 |
| pN (0 vs. 1, 2) | 13 / 7 | 2.06 | 0.62 - 6.89 | 0.2303 |
| GLUT-1 (low vs. high) | 9 / 11 | 2.29 | 0.66 - 7.94 | 0.1784 |
| GLUT-2 (low vs. high) | 7 / 13 | 0.97 | 0.29 - 3.22 | 0.9630 |
| SGLT-1 (low vs. high) | 4 / 16 | 3.02 | 0.84 - 10.83 | 0.0756 |
| SGLT-2 (low vs. high) | 11 / 9 | 0.25 | 0.07 - 0.95 | 0.0280 |
HR = hazard ratio; 95%CI = 95% confidential interval
Figure 2Survival curves according to SGLT - 2 expression in RCC tissue.
Patients were divided into two groups (low or high) based on the cutoff value determined by ROC analysis. Patients with higher SGLT - 2 expression showed poorer survival outcomes in both metastatic and non - metastatic disease states.
a) Overall survival curve according to SGLT - 2 expression in non - metastatic disease; b) Overall survival curve according to SGLT - 2 expression in metastatic disease.