Background and purpose: Epithelial ovarian carcinoma is the most malignant tumor in female reproductive system because of its resistance to chemotherapy. Fructose-1, 6-bisphosphatase (FBP1) is a rate-limiting enzyme in gluconeogenesis used to catalyze the hydrolysis of fructose-1, 6-bisphosphate to fructose-6-phosphate and inorganic phosphate, thereby inhibiting the effect of glycolysis in tumor cells. This study aimed to investigate the association between the expression of FBP1 and chemosensitivity. Methods: The expression level of FBP1 in ovarian cancer patients was measured by immunohistochemistry. Results: According to the results of immunohistochemistry in 209 ovarian carcinoma specimens, the percentage of positive FBP1 expression was about 49.3% (103/209). Loss of FBP1 was a negative factor of survival (42.6 months vs 62.1 months, P=0.003). Besides, patients who were sensitive to chemotherapy displayed significantly higher scores of FBP1 expression than patients who were resistant to therapy (P=0.007). Conclusion: The rate-limiting enzyme FBP1 in gluconeogenesis can be used as a biomarker for predicting the chemoresistance and prognosis of ovarian cancer patients.

Background and purpose:Cervical cancer remains the second leading cause of death in gynecologic malignancies partially because of resistance to chemotherapy. Bufalin, a component of the traditional Chinese medicine Chansu, has been widely used in cancer treatment in China. This study aimed to investigate the effects of bufalin on inhibiting the proliferation of ME180 and C33A and explore its possible mechanism.Methods:The cytostatic effects of bufalin on ME180 and C33A cells were evaluated by CCK8 assay (cell counting kit-8). Glucose levels in ME180 and C33A cells were measured using glucose assay kit. Then the alterations of GLUT1 (glucose transporter 1) and HK2 (hexokinase 2) gene expression were detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). The expressions of proto-oncogene C-MYC and HIF1α (hypoxia-inducible factor 1α) were determined by Western blot.Results:According to the results of CCK-8, bufalin can significantly inhibit the proliferation of carcinoma cells ME180 and C33A (P=0.027,P=0.018). Test on glycometabolism indicated that glucose uptake in cells treated with bufalin decreased (P=0.034,P=0.036). Results from real-time PCR showed that the expression of glycometabolism related indicators GLUT1 (P=0.019) and HK2 (P=0.016) levels were signiifcantly down-regulated in bufalin treated group. Western blot showed that the expression of C-MYC and HIF1αin cells with bufalin treatment was down-regulated markedly.Conclusion:Bufalin can inhibit the proliferation of the cervical carcinoma cells ME180 and C33A through inhibition of their glucose metabolism.

Objective:This study compares the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of two types of breast tissue markers to investigate the appropriate clinical application of the markers.Methods:Breast MRI of 69 patients (78 masses) with breast tissue markers had been placed were analyzed retrospectively from November 2015 to August 2018 in our hospital. The sizes and shapes of breast tissue markers were assessed in axial fat-suppressed T2-weighted images, T1-weighted images and contrast-enhanced T1-weighed images.Results:The length of the coil nickel-free stainless steel markers were greater than ribbon titanium markers, with statistical difference in fat-suppressed T2-weighted images ( P=0.039). In contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images, all coil nickel-free stainless steel markers showed >6 mm diameter and round shape, and ribbon titanium markers showed >6 mm diameter ( n=20) or ≤6 mm diameter ( n=8), and round ( n=20), dot ( n=7) or band ( n=1) shapes. The categories of sizes and shapes in two types of breast tissue markers both had statistical significance ( P<0.001, P<0.001). Conclusions:Small breast lesions with breast tissue markers are not suitable for MRI evaluation. The artifact of ribbon titanium markers is smaller than coil nickel-free stainless steel markers, so they have less impact for lesions. The choice of the breast tissue markers and image evaluation methods should depend on the different clinical conditions.