Clinical Significance and Biological Role of HuR in Head and Neck Carcinomas

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	—