Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Prognostic relevance of lactate dehydrogenase in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients

Contributed equally
BMC Cancer201717:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-3012-8

Received: 27 August 2015

Accepted: 15 December 2016

Published: 6 January 2017

Abstract

Background

The prognostic role of pretreatment serum lactate dehydronegase (LDH) has been well established in many malignant tumors, albeit it remains under-discussed in pancreatic cancer. In the present study, we aimed to assess the association between baseline LDH levels and overall survival (OS) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients who did and did not receive subsequent chemotherapy.

Methods

In total, 135 retrospectively determined patients with locally advanced or metastatic PDAC, who were diagnosed between 2012 and 2013, were analyzed. Baseline LDH levels were detected within 20 days after histopathological confirmation of the diagnosis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was applied to estimate the adjusted hazards ratio (HR) for LDH levels and OS of PDAC. We used restricted cubic spline (RCS) to further investigate dose-effect relationship in the association.

Results

Having adjusted for possible confounders, we found that in advanced PDAC patients who went through subsequent chemotherapy, an elevated pretreatment LDH level (≥250 U/L) had an adjusted HR of 2.47 (95% CI = 1.28–4.77) for death, but patients, who did not receive chemotherapy, had no significant HR (adjusted HR = 1.57; 95% CI = 0.83–2.96). RCS fitting results revealed a steep increase in HR for PDAC patients received chemotherapy with a baseline LDH > 500 U/L.

Conclusions

Pretreatment LDH levels had noticeable prognostic value in PDAC patients who received subsequent chemotherapy. Tackling elevated LDH levels before the initiation of chemotherapy might be a promising measure for improving OS of patients after treatment for their advanced PDAC. Studies with a large sample size and a prospective design are warranted to substantiate our findings.

Keywords

Lactate dehydrogenase Advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Survival analysis Restricted cubic spline

Background

In metabolic perspective, the most distinctive feature of cancer cells is the enhanced glycolytic activity even under sufficient oxygen supply, which is well known as the “Warburg effect” [1]. As a solid tumor which featured in hypoxia, some newly uncovered evidence has suggested that the “Warburg effect” may play a central role in the initiation, progression, and invasion of pancreatic cancer [2].

In the end of glycolysis process, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is involved as the catalyst in transforming pyruvate into lactate. It has been found that LDHA gene expression is up-regulated in many human malignant tumors, such as cancers of the esophagus [3], stomach [4], lung [5], colorectum [6], and more recently, pancreas [7].

The over-expression of LDHA inevitably promotes the production of LDH by cancer cells. Thus, the prognostic value of serum LDH levels in cancer has long been a topic of considerable research interest. Currently, the hazardous role of an elevated pretreatment LDH levels in survival of patients with small-cell lung cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, colon cancer, and aggressive lymphoid cancers has been well established [813]. However, the association between serum LDH levels and pancreatic cancer survival has only been discussed at a very limited scale, although several published studies reached a consensus in supporting an inverse association [1419]. Because published studies generally focused on advanced pancreatic cancer patients who received palliative chemotherapy, it is not clear whether the prognostic relevance of baseline LDH levels also exists in patients who are precluded from chemotherapy, which is another issue of potential clinical relevance, albeit it has never been discussed.

In the present study, we aimed to assess the association between baseline LDH levels and overall survival (OS) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy. Moreover, we further analyzed the dose-effect relationship in the association between LDH and OS of PDAC.

Methods

Study design

The study population consisted of 135 PDAC patients diagnosed between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013. All patients were retrospectively determined in a mega population-based electronic inpatients database originated from Shanghai metropolitan area, China. Other than histopathological confirmation, inclusion criteria for PDAC patients were: 1) locally advanced or metastasis occurred, already missed the opportunity for curative operation; 2) survival length, defined as time interval between the date of diagnosis and the date of death, surpassed 30 days; 3) vital information for analysis, such as age, sex, baseline (defined as within 20 days after PDAC confirmation) serum LDH and albumin test results, and chemotherapy regimens, was complete.

The outcome of interest was OS, and the date of death for PDAC patients was acquired through external matching with death registration system. The deadline of matching was set as January 31, 2015. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by Institutional Research Ethics Board of Fudan University, because of the retrospective nature, plus no individually identifiable or sensitive information was involved, informed consents from all patients had been waived.

General characteristics of 135 PDAC patients we studied are described in Table 1. The mean age of patients was 65.56 years, with a standard deviation of 10.91 years. The numbers of males and females were comparable. The longest survival length of PDAC patients was 965 days, and the shortest was 31 days. The median survival time was 214 days. Means of baseline LDH and albumin levels were 216.04 units/liter (U/L) and 38.61 g/L, respectively. Overall, 68 patients received subsequent chemotherapy, which accounted for 50.37%. Among the 68 patients who received chemotherapy, over 90% received gemcitabine alone or in combination with other agents and over 80% (N = 116) died before the pre-designated matching deadline.
Table 1

General characteristics of PDAC patients analyzed (N = 135)

Characteristic

Mean (Std.)/Median

Count (%)

Age (yrs)

65.56 (10.91)

-

Survival length (days)

214

-

Baseline LDH (U/L)

216.04 (90.96)

-

Baseline albumin (g/L)

38.61 (5.09)

-

Sex (Male)

-

65 (48.15)

Subsequent chemotherapy (Yes)

-

68 (50.37)

 Gemcitabine only

-

12 (17.65)

 Gemcitabine combined chemotherapy

-

50 (73.53)

 Other chemotherapy regimen

-

6 (8.82)

Variables and definitions

A normal level of serum LDH is usually defined as less than 250 U/L. We used this cutoff-value to dichotomize PDAC patients into “normal LDH” and “elevated LDH” groups based on the baseline test results. Baseline serum albumin levels were defined as “normal” (≥35 g/L) and “decreased” (<35 g/L) accordingly. Palliative chemotherapy was defined as the administration of one or more following medications that are commonly used for treatment of PDAC in China: gemcitabine, nab-Paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate or compare characteristics within or between PDAC patients from different baseline LDH groups. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was applied to estimate the adjusted hazards ratio associated with LDH levels. Finally, considering the arbitrariness which might have been introduced by pre-designated cutoff for baseline LDH levels, a continuous variable, as well as the possibility of nonlinear relationship, we adopted restrictive cubic spline (RCS) to discuss the dose-effect relationship in the association between LDH and death hazards in PDAC patients who did and did not receive chemotherapy separately. We chose three knots to fit RCS: the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of LDH levels.

All statistical analyses were executed by SAS (version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and the significance level for test or inference was set as two-tailed probability <0.05.

Results

Overall survival of PDAC patients with different baseline LDH levels

By applying the aforementioned cutoffs for LDH and albumin levels, 30 (22.22%) patients recorded an elevated baseline LDH level, while 26 (19.26%) presented decreased baseline albumin level. There are significant distributional differences in age at diagnosis and albumin levels between PDAC patients with normal and elevated baseline LDH levels, and the OS was comparatively inferior for PDAC patients with elevated LDH levels (Table 2).
Table 2

Distributional differences in general characteristics for PDAC patients of different baseline LDH levels

Characteristics

Normal baseline LDH

(N = 105)

Elevated baseline LDH

(N = 30)

p value

Age at diagnosis (Yrs, mean, std.)

65.04 (9.94)

67.37 (13.81)

0.02a

Sex (Male, %)

51 (48.57)

14 (46.67)

1.00b

Baseline albumin (Deceased, %)

16 (15.24)

10 (33.33)

0.04b

Subsequent chemotherapy (Yes, %)

55 (52.38)

13 (43.33)

0.41b

Survival length (Days, Median)

238

96

<0.01c

aBy t test bBy Fisher’s exact test cBy log-rank test

For subsequent chemotherapy, we sketched Kaplan-Meier survival curves with regard to baseline LDH levels: for both groups of patients, an elevated baseline LDH level was associated with significantly compromised OS (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier curves illustrating overall survival status by baseline LDH levels in two groups of advanced PDAC patients. a PDAC patients with chemotherapy; b PDAC patients withoutchemotherapy

Independent association between baseline LDH levels and OS of PDAC

The serum LDH level is also an indicator of liver function, and because of anatomic vicinity, advanced pancreatic cancer usually metastases to the liver, leading to a decreased liver function in turn [20]. Therefore, when constructing multivariate Cox model, we further included the serum albumin level, a more sensitive indicator of liver function to adjust for possible confounding. Cox model fitting results are enumerated in Table 3. For advanced PDAC patients who underwent subsequent palliative chemotherapy, univariate Cox model found that pretreatment LDH level was significantly associated with deteriorated survival (crude HR = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.23–4.45), and this notable association was maintained in the multivariate model: compared with patients having a normally ranged LDH level, an elevated LDH level was associated with an HR of 2.47 (95% CI = 1.28–4.77). For PDAC patients who did not accept chemotherapy, initially a prominent association between baseline LDH levels and OS has been discerned (crude HR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.04–3.47), but after adjustment for possible confounders, this association was insignificant (adjusted HR = 1.57; 95% CI = 0.83–2.96).
Table 3

Multivariate Cox regression model fitting results by acceptance of chemotherapy in advanced PDAC patients

Independent variables

Chemotherapy group

Non-chemotherapy group

Crude HR (95% CI)

Adjusted HR (95% CI)

Crude HR (95% CI)

Adjusted HR (95% CI)

Age at diagnosis (+5 years)

1.09 (0.94–1.25)

1.06 (0.94–1.20)

1.17 (1.03–1.33)

1.14 (1.00–1.30)

Sex (Male)

0.64 (0.38–1.07)

0.67 (0.39–1.14)

0.90 (0.53–1.55)

0.89 (0.50–1.56)

Baseline albumin (Decreased)

3.14 (1.67–5.89)

3.27 (1.70–6.27)

1.24 (0.62–2.47)

1.06 (0.51–2.21)

Baseline LDH (Elevated)

2.34 (1.23–4.45)

2.47 (1.28–4.77)

1.91 (1.04–3.47)

1.57 (0.83–2.96)

Dose-response association between baseline LDH and OS of PDAC

RCS fitting results disclosed that, in general, the dose-response trend between pretreatment LDH levels and HR was less apparent. In advanced PDAC patients who received chemotherapy, LDH levels higher than 500 U/L were associated with a significantly increased HR. On the contrary, in PDAC patients who did not receive chemotherapy, the change of baseline LDH levels showed an insignificant influence on OS (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

RCS fitting results for baseline LDH and OS in two groups of advanced PDAC patients. a chemotherapy group; b non-chemotherapy group

Discussion

In the present study, we discussed the influence of LDH levels measured right after cancer diagnosis on OS of patients with advanced PDAC. Based on multivariate Cox model and RCS, we observed that, for patients who received subsequent palliative chemotherapy, an elevated baseline LDH level was associated with nearly 2.5 folds hazards of death, whereas for patients who did not receive chemotherapy, this association was not statistically significant.

Serum LDH levels are widely accepted as indicators of tissue breakdown. In cancer patients, because of enhanced proliferation capacity, the cycle of cancer cells will be shortened, which in turn causes an increased risk of necrosis. Besides, vicinal normal tissues can be encroached upon and destructed by cancer cells [21]. All these mechanisms, along with enhanced glycolysis, may collectively contribute to increased serum LDH levels in cancer patients. In this sense, LDH levels can actually partly reflect tumor burden. It has been suggested that, high concentration of lactate can promote tumor progression and metastasis through up-regulation of tumor growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α, or through the direct enhancement of cellular motility [22]. More recently, Rong et al. found that LDH directly promotes the growth of pancreatic cancer cells [7]. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect that the significant inverse association between baseline LDH levels and survival we found in advanced PDAC patients who received chemotherapy can partly be attributed to tumor burden or pro-progression nature of LDH. As to the reason that why this association was not recognizable in patients who did not receive chemotherapy, the most likely explanation is that, usually an end-stage disease and exhausted physical status are major hurdles that may prevent cancer patients from chemotherapy; therefore, in this group of patients, the plummeting health would inundate a comparatively weak influence of LDH in survival, if it indeed existed.

High serum LDH levels have been found to be associated with resistance to chemotherapy in many types of cancer, such as cancers of the colorectum [23, 24], breasts [25], and lung [26, 27], just to name a few. A popular theory for this phenomenon is that stromal cells inversely transform lactate into pyruvate, which fuels progression of cancer cells and strengthens their resistance to chemotherapeutic agents [1, 28]. One previously published in vitro study clearly demonstrated that, novel LDH inhibitors exhibited synergistic cytotoxic activity with gemcitabine [29]. Therefore, it might be true that the association between elevated pretreatment LDH levels and deteriorated survival in advanced PDAC patients who went through chemotherapy was actually the association between enhanced chemoresistance and increased hazards of death.

Nevertheless, either way suggests the promising role of baseline LDH levels in individualized treatment of PDAC: for patients who are designated for chemotherapy, tackling elevated LDH levels before treatment may alleviate tumor stress and improve the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents, thus gain survival benefit in the end. Currently, various effective LDH inhibitors are already available, and the inhibition of LDH has minimum impact on normal tissues and presents no major side effects [2931]. More importantly, the reduction in LDH activity has been proved an effective anti-proliferation measure for several other types of cancer in vivo [32, 33]. For PDAC patients who are not suitable for chemotherapy, based on current evidence, the therapeutic value of LDH inhibition cannot be concluded yet.

Although the acceptance of chemotherapy can be an ideal surrogate for the disease stage and physical performance status, there lies a possibility that cost concern prevented some eligible PDAC patients from this available but expensive treatment, and this situation could introduce bias to the association between baseline LDH levels and OS in patients who did not receive chemotherapy. Nonetheless, this bias tended to derail the association away from the null, and even so, we still concluded an insignificant association in this group of patients.

Several limitations of the present study should be considered. At first, the risk of selection bias cannot be eliminated as we only chose advanced PDAC patients whose vital information was complete. Besides, although when estimating the association between baseline LDH levels and PDAC survival, we have successfully controlled for multiple possible confounders, residual confounding effect undoubtedly existed, and its extent is hard to estimate. Finally, all patients were originated from a localized region in China, thus the generalization of our study results should be made with caution. For future studies, from the genetic perspective, the association between LDH gene expression and OS of both advanced and resectable PDAC patients is a promising topic that deserves additional investigation. It is critically important to unveil the possible underlying mechanisms of our findings and to successfully implement effective intervention measures in improving the prognosis of PDAC patients.

Conclusions

In this retrospective study, we assessed the association between LDH levels measured right after cancer diagnosis and OS in a group of advanced PDAC patients. We found that an elevated pretreatment LDH level was associated with significantly deteriorated survival in PDAC patients who received subsequent chemotherapy, but this association was not statistically significant in PDAC patients who did not receive chemotherapy. Our findings suggest that, for PDAC patients, before the initiation of chemotherapy, tackling the enhanced LDH activity may ultimately improve survival. Prospective cohorts are warranted to validate our findings.

Abbreviations

HR: 

Hazard ratio

LDH: 

Lactate dehydrogenase

OS: 

Overall survival

PDAC: 

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

RCS: 

Restricted cubic spline

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Qingyi Wei of Duke Cancer Institute, who provided generous help in revising and proofreading this manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81273187), National Science and Technology Major Project of the People’s Republic of China (2012ZX09303-013-014).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreement, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

YX and NZ conceptualized the study. WC, ZX, ZS, and HX collected and sorted the data. YX, NZ, and GQ performed data analysis. YX drafted the manuscript, NZ, GQ, WC, ZX, ZS, and HX critically revised the paper. All authors had read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by Institutional Research Ethics Board of Fudan University. Because of the retrospective nature, plus no individually identifiable or sensitive information was involved, informed consents from all patients had been waived.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Fudan University
(2)
School of Public Health, Kunming Medical University
(3)
Information Center, Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning
(4)
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment, Ministry of Health (Fudan University)

References

  1. Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ. Why do cancers have high aerobic glycolysis? Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:891–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Zhao D, Zou SW, Liu Y, Zhou X, Mo Y, Wang P, et al. Lysine-5 acetylation negatively regulates lactate dehydrogenase A and is decreased in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Cell. 2013;23:464–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Yao F, Zhao T, Zhong C, Zhu J, Zhao H. LDHA is necessary for the tumorigenicity of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Tumour Biol. 2013;34:25–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sun X, Sun Z, Zhu Z, Guan H, Zhang J, Zhang Y, et al. Clinicopathological significance and prognostic value of lactate dehydrogenase A expression in gastric cancer patients. PLoS One. 2014;9:e91068.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Koukourakis MI, Giatromanolaki A, Sivridis E, Bougioukas G, Didilis V, Gatter KC, et al. Lactate dehydrogenase-5 (LDH-5) overexpression in non-small-cell lung cancer tissues is linked to tumour hypoxia, angiogenic factor production and poor prognosis. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:877–85.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Koukourakis MI, Giatromanolaki A, Sivridis E, Gatter KC, Harris AL. Lactate dehydrogenase 5 expression in operable colorectal cancer: strong association with survival and activated vascular endothelial growth factor pathway—a report of the Tumour Angiogenesis Research Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4301–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rong Y, Wu W, Ni X, Kuang T, Jin D, Wang D, et al. Lactate dehydrogenase A is overexpressed in pancreatic cancer and promotes the growth of pancreatic cancer cells. Tumour Biol. 2013;34:1523–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Souhami RL, Bradbury I, Geddes DM, Spiro SG, Harper PG, Tobias JS. Prognostic significance of laboratory parameters measured at diagnosis in small cell carcinoma of the lung. Cancer Res. 1985;45:2878–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen MH, Makuch R, Johnston-Early A, Ihde DC, Bunn Jr PA, Fossieck Jr BE, et al. Laboratory parameters as an alternative to performance status in prognostic stratification of patients with small cell lung cancer. Cancer Treat Rep. 1981;65:187–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Terpos E, Katodritou E, Roussou M, Pouli A, Michalis E, Delimpasi S, et al. High serum lactate dehydrogenase adds prognostic value to the international myeloma staging system even in the era of novel agents. Eur J Haematol. 2010;85:114–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Scartozzi M, Giampieri R, Maccaroni E, Del Prete M, Faloppi L, Bianconi M, et al. Pre-treatment lactate dehydrogenase levels as predictor of efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:799–804.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Jin Y, Ye X, Shao L, Lin BC, He CX, Zhang BB, et al. Serum lactic dehydrogenase strongly predicts survival in metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with palliative chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1619–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferraris AM, Giuntini P, Gaetani GF. Serum lactic dehydrogenase as a prognostic tool for non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Blood. 1979;54:928–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Haas M, Heinemann V, Kullmann F, Laubender RP, Klose C, Bruns CJ, et al. Prognostic value of CA 19-9, CEA, CRP, LDH and bilirubin levels in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: results from a multicenter, pooled analysis of patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2013;139:681–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tas F, Karabulut S, Ciftci R, Sen F, Sakar B, Disci R, et al. Serum levels of LDH, CEA, and CA19‑9 have prognostic roles on survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;73:1163–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Stocken DD, Hassan AB, Altman DG, Billingham LJ, Bramhall SR, Johnson PJ, et al. Modelling prognostic factors in advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:883–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Faloppi L, Bianconi M, Giampieri R, Sobrero A, Labianca R, Ferrari D, et al. The value of lactate dehydrogenase serum levels as a prognostic and predictive factor for advanced pancreatic cancer patients receiving sorafenib. Oncotarget. 2015;6:35087–94.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lo Re G, Santeufemia DA, Foltran L, Bidoli E, Basso SM, Lumachi F. Prognostic factors of survival in patients treated with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine regimen for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: A single institutional experience. Oncotarget. 2015;6:8255–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Haas M, Laubender RP, Stieber P, Holdenrieder S, Bruns CJ, Wilkowski R, et al. Prognostic relevance of CA 19-9, CEA, CRP, and LDH kinetics in patients treated with palliative second-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumour Biol. 2010;31:351–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Donahue TR, Kazanjian KK, Isacoff WH, Reber HA, Hines OJ. Impact of splenectomy on thrombocytopenia, chemotherapy, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1012–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Yamada Y, Nakamura K, Aoki S, Tobiume M, Zennami K, Kato Y, et al. Lactate dehydrogenase, Gleason score and HER-2 overexpression are significant prognostic factors for M1b prostate cancer. Oncol Rep. 2011;25:937–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Walenta S, Mueller-Klieser WF. Lactate: mirror and motor of tumor malignancy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004;14:267–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin JT, Wang WS, Yen CC, Liu JH, Yang MH, Chao TC, et al. Outcome of colorectal carcinoma in patients under 40 years of age. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;20:900–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Koukourakis MI, Giatromanolaki A, Sivridis E, Gatter KC, Trarbach T, Folprecht G, et al. Prognostic and predictive role of lactate dehydrogenase 5 expression in colorectal cancer patients treated with PTK787/ZK 222584 (vatalanib) antiangiogenic therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:4892–900.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhou M, Zhao Y, Ding Y, Liu H, Liu Z, Fodstad O, et al. Warburg effect in chemosensitivity: targeting lactate dehydrogenase-A re-sensitizes taxol-resistant cancer cells to taxol. Mol Cancer. 2010;9:33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Argiris A, Murren JR. Staging and clinical prognostic factors for small-cell lung cancer. Cancer J. 2001;7:437–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tas F, Aydiner A, Demir C, Topuz E. Serum lactate dehydrogenase levels at presentation predict outcome of patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001;24:376–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Koukourakis MI, Pitiakoudis M, Giatromanolaki A, Tsarouha A, Polychronidis A, Sivridis E, et al. Oxygen and glucose consumption in gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas: correlation with markers of hypoxia, acidity and anaerobic glycolysis. Cancer Sci. 2006;97:1056–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Maftouh M, Avan A, Sciarrillo R, Granchi C, Leon LG, Rani R, et al. Synergistic interaction of novel lactate dehydrogenase inhibitors with gemcitabine against pancreatic cancer cells in hypoxia. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:172–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Manerba M, Vettraino M, Fiume L, Di Stefano G, Sartini A, Giacomini E, et al. Galloflavin (CAS 568-80-9): a novel inhibitor of lactate dehydrogenase. ChemMedChem. 2012;7:311–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Granchi C, Roy S, De Simone A, Salvetti I, Tuccinardi T, Martinelli A, et al. N-Hydroxyindole-based inhibitors of lactate dehydrogenase against cancer cell proliferation. Eur J Med Chem. 2011;46:5398–407.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Xie H, Hanai J, Ren JG, Kats L, Burgess K, Bhargava P, et al. Targeting lactate dehydrogenase-A inhibits tumorigenesis and tumor progression in mouse models of lung cancer and impacts tumor-initiating cells. Cell Metab. 2014;19:795–809.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Le A, Cooper CR, Gouw AM, Dinavahi R, Maitra A, Deck LM, et al. Inhibition of lactate dehydrogenase A induces oxidative stress and inhibits tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:2037–42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement