| Literature DB >> 30723389 |
Ruohua Chen1, Xiang Zhou1, Gang Huang2, Jianjun Liu1.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the relationship between fructose 1,6-bisphosphatase 1 (FBP1) expression and fluorine 18 (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), and to investigate how 18F-FDG uptake and FBP1 expression are related to tumor metabolism and tumor differentiation grade. Materials andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30723389 PMCID: PMC6339721 DOI: 10.1155/2019/9463926
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Patients and tumor characteristics.
| Characteristics | No. of patients |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Male | 37 |
| Female | 17 |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 58.9 ± 10.4 |
| Range | 31–82 |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 6.47 ± 4.01 |
| Range | 1.2–20 |
|
| |
| Negative | 43 |
| Positive | 11 |
|
| |
| Low | 37 |
| High | 17 |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 6.21 ± 4.78 |
| Range | 1.7–22.1 |
|
| |
| Low | 29 |
| High | 25 |
Figure 1The relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and FBP1 expression in ccRCC. (a) FBP1 expression in ccRCC. The expression of FBP1 in ccRCC tissues (0.46 ± 0.07) was significantly lower than that in corresponding peritumor tissues (0.91 ± 0.04) (P < 0.0001). (b) Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis of SUVmax in primary tumor to predict FBP1 expression in ccRCC. With an SUVmax of 3.35 as the optimal value, sensitivity and specificity for prediction FBP1 expression were 88.9% and 58.3%, respectively. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.67 (95% confidence interval: 0.53–0.81; P=0.032).
Relationship between FBP1 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of ccRCC patients.
| Variable | Total | FBP1 expression |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
|
| ||||
| Male | 37 | 20 | 17 | 0.939 |
| Female | 17 | 9 | 8 | |
|
| ||||
| <60 | 25 | 14 | 11 | 0.753 |
| ≥60 | 29 | 15 | 14 | |
|
| ||||
| ≤7 | 34 | 13 | 21 | 0.003 |
| >7 | 20 | 16 | 4 | |
|
| ||||
| Negative | 43 | 22 | 21 | 0.459 |
| Positive | 11 | 7 | 4 | |
|
| ||||
| Low | 37 | 16 | 21 | 0.023 |
| High | 17 | 13 | 4 | |
|
| 7.56 ± 5.57 | 4.66 ± 3.08 | 0.02 | |
Figure 2The relationship between FBP1 expression, SUVmax, and tumor grade in patients with ccRCC. (a) The relationship between SUVmax and the staining score of FBP1 in ccRCC. When the score of FBP1 staining was 0, 1, 2, or 3, SUVmax of ccRCC was 7.7 ± 5.8, 6.5 ± 1.3, 5.4 ± 2.8, and 4.2 ± 3.2, respectively. (b) SUVmax analysis in high-grade ccRCC and low-grade ccRCC. SUVmax was higher in patients with high-grade ccRCC (mean, 11.6 ± 5.0) than in those with low-grade ccRCC (mean, 3.8 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). (c) FBP1 expression levels in patients with high-grade ccRCC and low-grade ccRCC. FBP1 expression was significantly lower in patients with high-grade ccRCC (mean, 0.23 ± 0.1) than in those with low-grade ccRCC (mean, 0.57 ± 0.08; P=0.018).
Figure 3The relationship between SUVmax and the expression of GLUT1 and HK2 in primary ccRCC tumors. (a) The relationship between SUVmax and GLUT1 expression in primary ccRCC tumors. The SUVmax of ccRCC in the high GLUT1 expression group (mean, 8.78 ± 6.04) was significantly higher than that in the low GLUT1 expression group (mean, 5.55 ± 4.23; P=0.045). (b) The relationship between SUVmax and HK2 expression in primary ccRCC tumors. There was no significant difference in SUVmax according to HK2 expression groups (P=0.23).
Relationship between FBP1 expression and expression of GLUT1 and HK2.
| FBP1 expression |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
| GLUT1 expression | Low | 20 | 23 | 0.036 |
| High | 9 | 2 | ||
| HK2 expression | Low | 19 | 18 | 0.609 |
| High | 10 | 7 | ||