Material and Method: 31 patients with invasive breast carcinomas without axillary lymph node metastasis were included in this study. Microvessel density was assessed by CD34 staining in the primary tumor and compared with the tumor type and prognostic parameters such as age, tumor size, nuclear grade, lymphatic vessel invasion, and estrogen and progesteron reseptor status. CD34 staining was evaluated in three areas by x200 magnification.
Results: The mean value microvessel density of CD34 staining in the primary tumor was 43 (minimum 19 and maximum 100). There was a significant relationship between microvessel density and progesterone receptor expression. microvessel density was higher in lobular type breast carcinoma.
Conclusion: The correlation between progesterone receptor status and microvessel density should be further confirmed by prospective studies. The high microvessel density rate in lobular carcinoma may be attributed to abundance of stromal cells or to the low number of patients.
Table I: The group of cases for statistical assesment
Median MVD value of CD34 stained sections in three areas (x200) was 43 (minimum 19 and maximum 100) (Figures 1 and 2). MVD was higher in the peripheral than in the central parts of tumors.
Figure 1: Low MVD in invasive ductal carcinoma (AEC, x100)
Figure 2: High MVD in invasive ductal carcinoma (AEC, x100)
The relationship between MVD and other parameters
The results of the relationship between MVD and other
parameters assesed by Fischer test was given in Table II.
Table II: The correlation between MVD and other parameters
We found a relationship between MVD and progesterone receptor expression. Besides, there was a weak correlation between NG and vessel density. However, this correlation was not proved by variance analysis (ANOVA).
The relationship between MVD and tumor type
Mann Whitney U and ANOVA tests were used to assess
the relation between tumor type and MVD. The results are given in Table III. There was a relation between tumor type
and MVD. Median MVD was 66.5 in lobular carcinoma
and 39.8 in ductal carcinoma.
We noticed an increase in MVD in 4 cases of lobular carcinoma. The difference in MVD between invasive ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma was statistically proven. Nakopoulou et al also found high MVD with factor VIII in invasive lobular carcinoma. However, they stated that they could not find the same difference with CD31. They also asserted invasive lobular carcinomas with high MVD had better prognostic parameters such as absence of metastasis and positive estrogen receptor expression[16]. This can be explained by prominent number of stromal cells in invasive lobular carcinoma whih may react with endothelial cell markers. Compared to factor VIII and CD31, CD34 was shown to be the best in determining microvessels with no CD34 immunreactivity in tumor or inflammatory cells[17]. Nevertheless, perivascular stromal cells may express CD34[18]. The high MVD rate in lobular carcinoma in our study may partly attributed to these stromal cells, since a precise judgment would not be made based on only four cases.
In a study investigating interobserver variability in deciding the most representative area showing intense staining (i.e. highest MVD), a significant difference was found between individual observers[19]. Fridman et al pointed out that there may be a remarkable difference in staining intensity in different sections of the same paraffin block or in different blocks of the same tumor[14]. There is a clear-cut difference in MVD (per mm2) in lymph node negative breast cancers in the literature[19]. In the current study, we used the most accepted criteria by Weidner[4]. We investigated MVD in one block including the peripheral portions of the tumor considering the previous studies reporting that these areas show more intense staining[12,15,18]. According to this criterion mean MVD value was 43 (in 0.79mm2) in 31 cases of lymph node negative breast carcinoma. This value was close to Weidner's study in which a mean value of 45 (in 0.74 mm2) was found[4].
In their study Cunnick et al found high lyphangiogenesis rates with specific lymphatic markers in breast cancer compared to normal breast. In addition, carcinomas with regional lymph node metastasis showed high expression rates compared to those without metastasis[20]. Abd El Moneim et al found breast carcinomas with high MVD can predict metastasis in axillar lymph nodes. They also concluded that MVD has a useful effect on predicting not only prognosis but also the cases which will benefit from antiangiogenic therapies added to adjuvant therapies[21].
The prognostic value of angiogenesis is controversial. Many studies proved that MVD in invasive breast carcinoma has a prognostic value[4-10] although some others did not[12-14]. MVD is an important indicator of prognosis in lymph node negative breast carcinoma and also has an effect in determining those with poor prognosis[6,8,11].
We think that the correlation of angiogenesis with progesterone status should be confirmed by prospective studies using different therapeutic strategies like antiangiogenic molecules. Although the high MVD in invasive lobular carcinoma in this study may be due to stromal cells or low number of patients the relation between angiogenesis and hormone receptors should also be clarified.
1) Kumar V, Fausto N, Abbas A: Pathologic Basis of Disease. 7 ed.
Saunders, Philadelphia, 2005, 1129-1148
2) Fidler IJ, Ellis LM: The implications of angiogenesis for the
biology and therapy of cancer metastasis. Cell. 1994, 79:185-188 [ Özet ]
3) Pluda JM: Tumor-associated angiogenesis: mechanisms, clinical
implications, and therapeutic strategies. Semin. Oncol 1997,
24:203-218 [ Özet ]
4) Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J: Tumor angiogenesis
and metastasis-correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J
Med 1991, 324:1-8 [ Özet ]
5) Bosari S, Lee AK, DeLellis RA, Wiley BD, Heatley GJ, Silverman
ML: Microvessel quantitation and prognosis in invasive breast
carcinoma. Hum. Pathol. 1992, 23:755-761 [ Özet ]
6) Gasparini G, Weidner N, Bevilacqua P, Maluta S, Dalla Palma
P, Caffo O, Barbareschi M, Boracchi P, Marubini E, Pozza F:
Tumor microvessel density, p53 expression, tumor size, and
peritumoral lymphatic vessel invasion are relevant prognostic
markers in node-negative breast carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 1994,
12:454-466 [ Özet ]
7) Ogawa Y, Chung YS, Nakata B, Takatsuka S, Maeda K, Sawada
T, Kato Y, Yoshikawa K, Sakurai M, Sowa M: Microvessel
quantitation in invasive breast cancer by staining for factor VIIIrelated
antigen. Br J Cancer. 1995, 71:1297-1301 [ Özet ]
8) Bevilacqua P, Barbareschi M, Verderio P, Boracchi P, Caffo O,
Dalla Palma P, Meli S, Weidner N, Gasparini G: Prognostic
value of intratumoral microvessel density, a measure of tumor
angiogenesis, in node-negative breast carcinoma--results of
a multiparametric study. Breast Cancer Res. and Treat. 1995,
36:205-217 [ Özet ]
9) Karaiossifidi H, Kouri E, Arvaniti H, Sfikas S, Vasilaros S:
Tumor angiogenesis in node-negative breast cancer: relationship
with relapse free survival. Anticancer Res. 1996, 16:4001-4002 [ Özet ]
10) Heimann R, Ferguson D, Gray S, Hellman S: Assessment of
intratumoral vascularization (angiogenesis) in breast cancer
prognosis. Breast Cancer Res. and Treat. 1998, 52:147-158 [ Özet ]
11) Arora R, Joshi K, Nijhawan R, Radotra BD, Sharma SC:
Angiogenesis as an independent prognostic indicator in nodenegative
breast cancer. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2002, 24:228-
233 [ Özet ]
12) Van Hoef ME, Knox WF, Dhesi SS, Howell A, Schor AM:
Assessment of tumour vascularity as a prognostic factor in
lymph node negative invasive breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer. 1993,
29A:1141-1145 [ Özet ]
13) Aranda FI, Laforga JB: Microvessel quantitation in breast
ductal invasive carcinoma. Correlation with proliferative activity,
hormonal receptors and lymph node metastases. Path. Res. Pract.
1996, 192:124-129 [ Özet ]
14) Fridman V, Humblet C, Bonjean K, Boniver J: Assessment of
tumor angiogenesis in invasive breast carcinomas: absence of
correlation with prognosis and pathological factors. Virchows
Arch. 2000, 437:611-617 [ Özet ]
15) Vameşu S: Angiogenesis and progesterone receptor status in
primary breast cancer patients: an analysis of 158 needle core
biopsies. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2007, 48:267-274 [ Özet ]
16) Nakopoulou L, Lekkas N, Lazaris AC, Athanassiadou
P, Giannopoulou I, Mavrommatis J, Davaris P: An
immunohistochemical analysis of angiogenesis in invasive
breast cancer with correlations to clinicopathologic predictors.
Anticancer Research. 1999, 19:4547-4554 [ Özet ]
17) Martin L, Green B, Renshaw C, Lowe D, Rudland P, Leinster
SJ, Winstanley J: Examining the technique of angiogenesis
assessment in invasive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1997, 76:1046-
1054 [ Özet ]
18) Weidner N: Current pathologic methods for measuring
intratumoral microvessel density within breast carcinoma and
other solid tumors. Breast Cancer Res. and Treat. 1995, 36:169-
180 [ Özet ]
19) Vermeulen PB, Libura M, Libura J, O'Neill PJ, van Dam P, Van
Marck E, Van Oosterom AT, Dirix LY: Influence of investigator
experience and microscopic field size on microvessel density in
node-negative breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res. and Treat.
1997, 42:165-172