UNLABELLED: Although overexpression of GLUT-1 glucose transporter has already been reported in human cancers, the mechanism of glucose entry into pancreatic cancers remains unknown. To evaluate the relationship between GLUT glucose transporters and FDG uptake, FDG-PET was performed in 34 preoperative patients (mean age, 60.9 yr) with suspected pancreatic tumors, including 28 malignant and 6 benign tumors. METHODS: FDG uptake at 50 min after injection of 185 MBq of [18F]FDG with >5 hr of fasting was semiquantitatively analyzed as standardized uptake values (SUVs). The GLUT expression was studied by immunohistochemistry of paraffin sections from these tumors after operation using anti-GLUT-1, -2, -3, -4 and -5 antibodies to obtain immunohistochemical grading ("strong," "weak" and "negative") by three experienced physicians. RESULTS: Of 26 malignant tumors proved by histological examination, 23 (88%) tumors were positive for the expression of GLUT-1 glucose transporter, and 17 (61%) showed strong expression. On the other hand, 13 (46%), 0 (0%), 9 (36%) and 13 (46%) malignant tumors were positive for the expression of GLUT-2, -3, -4 and -5 glucose transporters, respectively. Three of six benign tumors showed strong GLUT-1 expression. Concerning GLUT-2, -3, -4 and -5, only one benign tumor showed positive GLUT-5 expression. Thus, GLUT-1 showed relatively high sensitivity but low specificity (50%) for detecting malignant tumors, whereas GLUT-2, -3, -4 and -5 had lower sensitivities but higher specificities. Correlations between SUVs and grading of GLUT immunoreactivity were significant in GLUT-1 (strong, 4.49 +/- 2.95; weak, 3.42 +/- 1.21; negative, 2.52 +/- 0.84) (p < 0.05) but not in the remaining four GLUT transporters. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that GLUT-1 has a significant role in the malignant glucose metabolism and may contribute to the increased uptake of FDG in PET imaging in patients with pancreatic tumor.
UNLABELLED: Although overexpression of GLUT-1glucose transporter has already been reported in humancancers, the mechanism of glucose entry into pancreatic cancers remains unknown. To evaluate the relationship between GLUTglucose transporters and FDG uptake, FDG-PET was performed in 34 preoperative patients (mean age, 60.9 yr) with suspected pancreatic tumors, including 28 malignant and 6 benign tumors. METHODS:FDG uptake at 50 min after injection of 185 MBq of [18F]FDG with >5 hr of fasting was semiquantitatively analyzed as standardized uptake values (SUVs). The GLUT expression was studied by immunohistochemistry of paraffin sections from these tumors after operation using anti-GLUT-1, -2, -3, -4 and -5 antibodies to obtain immunohistochemical grading ("strong," "weak" and "negative") by three experienced physicians. RESULTS: Of 26 malignant tumors proved by histological examination, 23 (88%) tumors were positive for the expression of GLUT-1glucose transporter, and 17 (61%) showed strong expression. On the other hand, 13 (46%), 0 (0%), 9 (36%) and 13 (46%) malignant tumors were positive for the expression of GLUT-2, -3, -4 and -5glucose transporters, respectively. Three of six benign tumors showed strong GLUT-1 expression. Concerning GLUT-2, -3, -4 and -5, only one benign tumor showed positive GLUT-5 expression. Thus, GLUT-1 showed relatively high sensitivity but low specificity (50%) for detecting malignant tumors, whereas GLUT-2, -3, -4 and -5 had lower sensitivities but higher specificities. Correlations between SUVs and grading of GLUT immunoreactivity were significant in GLUT-1 (strong, 4.49 +/- 2.95; weak, 3.42 +/- 1.21; negative, 2.52 +/- 0.84) (p < 0.05) but not in the remaining four GLUT transporters. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that GLUT-1 has a significant role in the malignant glucose metabolism and may contribute to the increased uptake of FDG in PET imaging in patients with pancreatic tumor.
Authors: Nadine Fabienne Voelxen; Sebastian Blatt; Pascal Knopf; Maurice Henkel; Christina Appelhans; Leonardo A R Righesso; Andreas Pabst; Jutta Goldschmitt; Stefan Walenta; Andreas Neff; Wolfgang Mueller-Klieser; Thomas Ziebart Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-07-22 Impact factor: 3.573