4.5 Review

Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of GLUT1 in breast cancer A meta-analysis

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 97, Issue 48, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012961

Keywords

breast cancer; carcinogenesis; GLUT1; meta-analysis; prognosis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81602652]
  2. Shanghai Pudong New Area Health and Family Planning Commission [PWZxq2017-16]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Previous studies examining the prognostic value of glucose transporter 1 in breast cancer have yielded inconsistent results. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to clarify this issue. Methods: The research was reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library. Results: A total of 7 reports with 1861 patients were finally chosen. GLUT1 overexpression was found to be associated with high histological grade (OR=3.74, 95% CI=2.45-5.69, P<.001), negative PR status (OR=0.33, 95% CI=0.22-0.49, P<.001), and negative estrogen receptor (ER) status (OR=0.27, 95% CI=0.17-0.42, P<.001). However, no significant correlation was seen between GLUT1 levels and presence of lymph node metastasis, tumor size or the status of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Overexpression of GLUT1 also correlated with a poor overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]=1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.17-2.31, P=.004) and disease-free survival (HR=2.35, 95% CI=1.4-3.94, P<.001). No evidence of significant publication bias was found. Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that GLUT1 expression is associated with poor prognostic and a series of clinicopathological features in breast cancer. GLUT1 might be a potential biomarker and therapeutic target in breast cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available