BACKGROUND: Tumour 18F-FDG-uptake is of prognostic value in high-risk and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study is to investigate the underlying glucose metabolism mechanisms of 18F-FDG-uptake on PET/CT imaging in PCa. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted for 94 patients diagnosed with a Gleason sum ≥8 adenocarcinoma of the prostate at biopsy between July 2011 and July 2014 who underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging before radical prostatectomy (RP). 18F-FDG-uptake in primary lesion was measured by a blinded reader using maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax). GLUT1, GLUT12 and HK2 expression were blindly scored after immunohistochemistry on specimens RP by three pathologists. Correlations between GLUT1, GLUT12 and HK2, and SUVmax were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation test. Survival probabilities were based on the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 56% (n = 53) of patients had biochemical recurrence (BCR), 7% (n = 7) progressed to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) disease, 13% (n = 12) developed metastasis and 6% (n = 6) died. Correlation was found between GLUT1 expression and SUVmax level (r = 0.25, p = 0.02). In addition, SUVmax was significantly higher in tumours with high GLUT1 expression (n = 17, 5.74 ± 1.67) than tumours with low GLUT1 expression (n = 71, 2.68 ± 0.31, p = 0.004). Moreover, a significant association was found between GLUT1 expression levels and SUVmax level (p = 0.005), lymph node status (p = 0.05), volume of cancer (p = 0.01), CRPC disease progression (p = 0.02) and metastasis development (p = 0.04). No significant difference between GLUT12 and HEX2 expression and SUVmax have been found. CONCLUSIONS: GLUT1 expression in PCa tumours correlates with 18F-FDG-uptake and poor prognostic factors. These results suggest that this transporter is involved in the molecular mechanism of 18F-FDG-uptake in high-risk PCa and raise interest in targeting metabolic dependencies of PCa cells as a selective anticancer strategy.
BACKGROUND: Tumour 18F-FDG-uptake is of prognostic value in high-risk and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study is to investigate the underlying glucose metabolism mechanisms of 18F-FDG-uptake on PET/CT imaging in PCa. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted for 94 patients diagnosed with a Gleason sum ≥8 adenocarcinoma of the prostate at biopsy between July 2011 and July 2014 who underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging before radical prostatectomy (RP). 18F-FDG-uptake in primary lesion was measured by a blinded reader using maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax). GLUT1, GLUT12 and HK2 expression were blindly scored after immunohistochemistry on specimens RP by three pathologists. Correlations between GLUT1, GLUT12 and HK2, and SUVmax were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation test. Survival probabilities were based on the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 56% (n = 53) of patients had biochemical recurrence (BCR), 7% (n = 7) progressed to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) disease, 13% (n = 12) developed metastasis and 6% (n = 6) died. Correlation was found between GLUT1 expression and SUVmax level (r = 0.25, p = 0.02). In addition, SUVmax was significantly higher in tumours with high GLUT1 expression (n = 17, 5.74 ± 1.67) than tumours with low GLUT1 expression (n = 71, 2.68 ± 0.31, p = 0.004). Moreover, a significant association was found between GLUT1 expression levels and SUVmax level (p = 0.005), lymph node status (p = 0.05), volume of cancer (p = 0.01), CRPC disease progression (p = 0.02) and metastasis development (p = 0.04). No significant difference between GLUT12 and HEX2 expression and SUVmax have been found. CONCLUSIONS:GLUT1 expression in PCatumours correlates with 18F-FDG-uptake and poor prognostic factors. These results suggest that this transporter is involved in the molecular mechanism of 18F-FDG-uptake in high-risk PCa and raise interest in targeting metabolic dependencies of PCa cells as a selective anticancer strategy.
Authors: Cátia V Vaz; Ricardo Marques; Marco G Alves; Pedro F Oliveira; José E Cavaco; Cláudio J Maia; Sílvia Socorro Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Mark A White; Efrosini Tsouko; Chenchu Lin; Kimal Rajapakshe; Jeffrey M Spencer; Sandi R Wilkenfeld; Sheiva S Vakili; Thomas L Pulliam; Dominik Awad; Fotis Nikolos; Rajasekhara Reddy Katreddy; Benny Abraham Kaipparettu; Arun Sreekumar; Xiaoliu Zhang; Edwin Cheung; Cristian Coarfa; Daniel E Frigo Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Pedro Gonzalez-Menendez; David Hevia; Rebeca Alonso-Arias; Alejandro Alvarez-Artime; Aida Rodriguez-Garcia; Sandrina Kinet; Ivan Gonzalez-Pola; Naomi Taylor; Juan C Mayo; Rosa M Sainz Journal: Redox Biol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 11.799
Authors: Alecio F Lombardi; Jonathan H Wong; Rachel High; Yajun Ma; Saeed Jerban; Qingbo Tang; Jiang Du; Patrick Frost; Mark D Pagel; Eric Y Chang Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.484
Authors: Florian Rosar; Kalle Ribbat; Martin Ries; Johannes Linxweiler; Mark Bartholomä; Stephan Maus; Mathias Schreckenberger; Samer Ezziddin; Fadi Khreish Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Karan Khanna; Nikki Salmond; Kalan S Lynn; Hon S Leong; Karla C Williams Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Yun Lu; Meng Li; Adriana V F Massicano; Patrick N Song; Ameer Mansur; Katherine A Heinzman; Benjamin M Larimer; Suzanne E Lapi; Anna G Sorace Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 4.411