Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 28;2018:4020937. doi: 10.1155/2018/4020937

Table 2.

HuR expression, localisation, and associations with clinicopathological features and target molecules as well as patients' overall survival in studies investigating tissue samples.

Study N HuR localisation Correlations with
Nuclear Cytoplasmic Clinicopathological features Other molecules Patients' overall survival
OSCCs
Cha et al. [64] 95 91.6% (87/95) 71.6% (68/95) Grade Nuclear and cytoplasmic with IAP2 Cytoplasmic HuR adverse prognosticator
Cha et al. [63] 103 93.2% (96/103) 69.9% (72/103) Gender, grade, lymph node, and distant metastasis Cytoplasmic HuR with COX-2 Cytoplasmic HuR adverse prognosticator
Kim et al. [68] 96 91% (83/96) 60% (54/96) Lymph node metastasis Not correlated

LSCCs
Cho et al. [44] 39 100% (39/39) 66.6% (26/39) None Cytoplasmic HuR with COX-2

Thyroid lesions
Giaginis et al. [98] 98 Presence in 80% (78/98), higher expression in 43% (42/98)
Benign 48 Predominantly nuclear, higher expression in 29% (14/48) (i) Ki-67 in follicular cells
(ii) COX-2 (stronger in benign)
Malignant 50 Predominantly cytoplasmic, higher expression in 56% (28/50) Lymphatic invasion (trend)
Baldan et al. [97] 104
Normal samples 12 (i) ↑ nuclear in all tumours
(ii) ↑ cytoplasmic in nontumour tissues versus FAs or PTCs, FTCs and ATCs
Follicular adenomas 25
Carcinomas (PTC, FTC, and ATC) 67

Salivary gland tumours
Cho et al. [100] 46
Pleomorphic adenoma 28 53.6% (15/28) 35.7% (10/28)
Mucoepidermoid carcinoma 18 77.78% (14/18) 72.22% (13/18) Cytoplasmic HuR with COX-2