Skip to main content

Influence of investigator experience and microscopic field size on microvessel density in node-negative breast carcinoma

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment volume 42, pages 165–172 (1997)Cite this article

Abstract

In this study on the determination of intratumoralmicrovessel density (MVD) in breast cancer, we haveinvestigated the influence of the observer experience andthe microscopic field size. We have used thesample set reported on earlier in the JNatl Cancer Inst 87: 1797–1798, 1995. This case-controlstudy has shown a positive association of highMVD and unfavorable outcome when comparing node-negative pT1–2breast carcinoma (NNBC) patients with a disease-free periodof over ten years with those with anearly distant relapse.Tumor sections of both outcome groups (favorable: n= 19; unfavorable: n = 19) were immunostainedfor factor VIII related-antigen (FVIII r-Ag). Microvessels werecounted in the areas of most intense vascularization(‘hot spots’), both at magnification × 200 (fieldsize of 0.61 square mm) and × 400(field size of 0.15 square mm), by oneinexperienced and three experienced observers. Microphotographs of individualvascular hot spots were analyzed using overlays resemblingthe two field sizes.The main results obtained are: i) a confirmationof the prognostic value of microvessel density inthe case-control sample set (n = 38) wasestablished by all experienced but not by theunexperienced investigator; ii) both at × 200 and× 400 magnification, angiogenesis quantification in vascular hotspots contained prognostic information.The results of this study indicate that theselection of vascular hot spots in tumor sectionsimmunostained for an antigen expressed on endothelial cellsis more prone to inter-observer variability and moredependent on training than the counting of themicrovessels within predefined hot spots itself. The microscopicmagnification and resulting field size do not influencethe prognostic significance of MVD in NNBC. Thisinformation validates the development of more objective methodsof measuring the amount of angiogenesis within malignanttissue. This will allow more accurate implementation ofthe angiogenesis parameter in multiparametric and prospective prognosticfactor studies in NNBC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

References

  1. Gasparini G, Harris AL: Clinical importance of determination of tumor angiogenesis in breast carcinoma: much more than a new prognostic tool. J Clin Oncol 13: 765–782, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  2. Folkman J, Watson K, Ingber D, Hanahan D: Induction of angiogenesis during the transition from hyperplasia to neoplasia. Nature 339: 58–61, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kieser A, Weich HA, Brandner G, Marmé D, Kolch W: Mutant p53 potentiates protein kinase C induction of vascular endothelial growth factor expression. Oncogene 9: 963–969, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rak J, Mitsuhashi Y, Bayko L, Filmus J, Shirasawa S, Sasazuki T, Kerbel RS: Mutant ras oncogenes upregulate VEGF/VPF expression: implications for induction and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Res 55: 4575–4580, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  5. Auerbach R, Cheng Lu W, Pardon E, Gumkowski F, Kaminska G, Kaminski M: Specificity of adhesion between murine tumor cells and capillary endothelium: an in vitro correlate of preferential metastasis in vivo. Cancer Res 47: 1492–1496, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shweiki D, Itin A, Soffer D, Keshet E: Vascular endothelial growth factor induced by hypoxia may mediate hypoxia-initiated angiogenesis. Nature 359: 843–845, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  7. McCulloch P, Choy A, Martin L: Association between tumor angiogenesis and tumor cell shedding into effluent venous blood during breast cancer surgery. Lancet 346: 1334–1335, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gasparini G, Pozza F, Harris AL: Evaluating the potential usefulness of new prognostic and predictive indicators in node-negative breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 1206–1219, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  9. Costello P, McCann A, Carney DN, Dervan PA: Prognostic significance of microvessel density in lymph node negative breast carcinoma. Hum Pathol 26: 1181–1184, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vermeulen PB, Libura J, Libura M, Hellemans PWJ, Van Marck E, Van Oosterom AT, Dirix LY: Re: Tumor angiogenesis as a prognostic assay for invasive ductal breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 1797–1798, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vermeulen PB, Verhoeven D, Fierens H, Hubens G, Goovaerts G, Van Marck E, De Bruijn EA, Van Oosterom AT, Dirix LY: Microvessel quantification in primary colorectal carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study. Br J Cancer 71: 340–343, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  12. Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J: Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis — correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 324: 1–8, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  13. Obermair A, Kurz Ch, Czerwenka K, Thoma M, Kaider A, Wagner Th, Gitsch G, Sevelda P: Microvessel density and vessel invasion in lymph-node-negative breast cancer: effect on recurrence-free survival. Int J Cancer 62: 126–131, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  14. Axelsson K, Ljung BE, Moore II DH, Thor AD, Chew KL, Edgerton SM, Smith HS, Mayall BH: Tumor angiogenesis as a prognostic assay for invasive ductal breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 997–1008, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weidner N, Folkman J, Pozza F, Pierantonio B, Allred EN, Moore DH, Meli S, Gasparini G: Tumor angiogenesis: a new significant and independent prognostic indicator in early-stage breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 84: 1875–1887, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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 VIII-related antigen. Br J Cancer 71: 1297–1301, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  17. Toi M, Kashitani J, Tominaga T: Tumor angiogenesis is an independent prognostic indicator in primary breast carcinoma. Int J Cancer 55: 371–374, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bosari S, Lee AKC, DeLellis RA, Wiley BD, Heatley GJ, Silverman ML: Microvessel quantitation and prognosis in invasive breast carcinoma. Hum Pathol 23: 755–761, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  19. Obermair A, Czerwenka K, Kurz Ch, Kaider A, Sevelda P: Tumor microvessel density in breast cancer and its influence on recurrence-free survival. Chirurg 65: 611–615, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  20. Van Hoef MEHM, Knox WF, Dhesi SS, Howell A, Schor AM: Assessment of tumor vascularity as a prognostic factor in lymph node negative invasive breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 29A: 1141–1145, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hall NR, Fish DE, Hunt N, Goldin RD, Guillou PJ, Monson JRT: Is the relationship between angiogenesis and metastasis in breast cancer real? Surg Oncol 1: 223–229, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  22. Siitonen SM, Haapasalo HK, Rantala IS, Helin HJ, Isola JJ: Comparison of different immunohistochemical methods in the assessment of angiogenesis: lack of prognostic value in a group of 77 selected node-negative breast carcinomas. Mod Pathol 8: 745–752, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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 12: 454–466, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goulding H, Nik Abdul Rashid NF, Robertson JF, Bell JA, Elston CW, Blamey RW, Ellis IO: Assessment of angiogenesis in breast carcinoma: an important factor in prognosis? Hum Pathol 26: 1196–1200, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  25. Horak ER, Leek R, Klenk N, LeJeune S, Smith K, Stuart N, Greenall M, Stepniewska K, Harris AL: Angiogenesis assessed by platelet/endothelial adhesion molecule antibodies, as indicator of node metastases and survival in breast cancer. Lancet 340: 1120–1124, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  26. Barbareschi M, Weidner N, Gasparini G, Morelli L, Forti S, Eccher C, Fina P, Caffo O, Leonardi E, Mauri F, Bevilacqua P, Dalla Palma P: Microvessel density quantification in breast carcinomas: assessment by light microscopy vs. a computer-aided image analysis system. Appl Immunohistochem 3: 75–84, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fox SB, Leek RD, Weekes MP, Whithouse RM, Gatter KC, Harris AL: Quantitation and prognostic value of breast cancer angiogenesis: comparison of microvessel density, Chalkley count, and computer image analysis. J Pathol 177: 275–283, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wang JM, Kumar S, Pye D, Van Agthoven AJ, Krupinski J, Hunter RD: A monoclonal antibody detects heterogeneity in vascular endothelium of tumors and normal tissues. Int J Cancer 54: 363–370, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  29. Burrows FJ, Thorpe PE: Eradication of large solid tumors in mice with an immunotoxin directed against tumor vasculature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90: 8996–9000, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vermeulen PB, Verhoeven D, Hubens G, Van Marck E, Goovaerts G, Huyghe M, De Bruijn EA, Van Oosterom AT, Dirix LY: Microvessel density, endothelial cell proliferation and tumor cell proliferation in human colorectal adenocarcinomas. Ann Oncol 6: 59–64, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  31. Li VW, Folkerth RD, Watanabe H, Yu C, Rupnick M, Barnes P, Scott RM, Black P, Sallan SE, Folkman F: Microvessel count and cerebrospinal fluid basic fibroblast growth factor in children with brain tumors. Lancet 344: 82–86, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ueki T, Koji T, Tamiya S, Nakane PK, Tsuneyoshi M: Expression of basic fibroblast growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptor in advanced gastric carcinoma. J Pathol 177: 353–361, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  33. Berger DP, Herbstritt L, Dengler WA, Marmé D, Mertelsmann R, Fiebig HH: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mRNA expression in human tumor models of different histologies. Ann Oncol 6: 817–825, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nguyen M, Watanabe H, Budson AE: Elevated levels of an angiogenic peptide, basic fibroblast growth factor, in the urine of patients with a wide spectrum of cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: 356–361, 1994

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Angiogenesis Group (Lab. Cancer Res. & Clin. Onc.), University of Antwerp (UIA), Edegem, Belgium

    Peter B. Vermeulen, Martha Libura, Jolantha Libura, Patrick J. O‘Neill, Peter van Dam, Eric Van Marck, Allan T. Van Oosterom & Luc Y. Dirix

Authors
  1. Peter B. Vermeulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martha Libura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jolantha Libura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick J. O‘Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter van Dam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eric Van Marck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Allan T. Van Oosterom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luc Y. Dirix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vermeulen, P.B., Libura, M., Libura, J. et al. Influence of investigator experience and microscopic field size on microvessel density in node-negative breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 42, 165–172 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005737524541

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005737524541

  • node-negative breast cancer
  • prognosis
  • tumor angiogenesis
  • microvessel density
  • immunohistochemistry