About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
BioMed Research International
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 286902, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/286902
Research Article

Digital Microscopy Assessment of Angiogenesis in Different Breast Cancer Compartments

1Emergency Medicine Department, Gr. T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania
2Emergency Medicine Department, Saint Spiridon Hospital, 700115 Iasi, Romania
3Pathophysiology and Allergy Research Department, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
4TissueGnostics GmbH, 1020 Vienna, Austria
5Pathology Department, County Emergency Hospital, 610136 Piatra Neamt, Romania
6Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483 Iasi, Romania
7Department of Anatomy, Gr. T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania
8Pathology Department, Gr. T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania

Received 10 April 2013; Accepted 29 July 2013

Academic Editor: Takahiro Hasebe

Copyright © 2013 Anca Haisan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. Folkman, “Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 285, no. 21, pp. 1182–1186, 1971. View at Scopus
  2. J. Folkman and R. Cotran, “Relation of vascular proliferation to tumor growth,” International Review of Experimental Pathology, vol. 16, pp. 207–248, 1976. View at Scopus
  3. J. Folkman, “Anti-angiogenesis: new concept for therapy of solid tumors,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 175, no. 3, pp. 409–416, 1972. View at Scopus
  4. J. Folkman, “Toward an understanding of angiogenesis: search and discovery,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 10–36, 1985. View at Scopus
  5. J. Folkman, “What is the evidence that tumors are angiogenesis dependent?” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 4–6, 1990. View at Scopus
  6. B. Uzzan, P. Nicolas, M. Cucherat, and G.-Y. Perret, “Microvessel density as a prognostic factor in women with breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 2941–2955, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. N. Weidner, J. P. Semple, W. R. Welch, and J. Folkman, “Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis—correlation in invasive breast carcinoma,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 324, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 1991. View at Scopus
  8. N. Weidner, “Current pathologic methods for measuring intratumoral microvessel density within breast carcinoma and other solid tumors,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 169–180, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. P. E. Vermeulen, G. Gasparini, S. B. Fox et al., “Quantification of angiogenesis in solid human tumours: an international consensus on the methodology and criteria of evaluation,” European Journal of Cancer Part A, vol. 32, no. 14, pp. 2474–2484, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. N. Weidner, P. R. Carroll, J. Flax, W. Blumenfeld, and J. Folkman, “Tumor angiogenesis correlates with metastasis in invasive prostate carcinoma,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 143, no. 2, pp. 401–409, 1993.
  11. G. Gasparini, “Clinical significance of the determination of angiogenesis in human breast cancer: update of the biological background and overview of the Vicenza studies,” European Journal of Cancer Part A, vol. 32, no. 14, pp. 2485–2493, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. P. B. Vermeulen, M. Libura, J. Libura et al., “Influence of investigator experience and microscopic field size on microvessel density in node-negative breast carcinoma,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 165–172, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. N. Weidner, “Tumoural vascularity as a prognostic factor in cancer patients: the evidence continues to grow,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 184, no. 2, pp. 119–122, 1998. View at Scopus
  14. S. Hansen, D. A. Grabau, C. Rose, M. Bak, and F. B. Sørensen, “Angiogenesis in breast cancer: a comparative study of the observer variability of methods for determining microvessel density,” Laboratory Investigation, vol. 78, no. 12, pp. 1563–1573, 1998. View at Scopus
  15. A. M. Schor, N. Pendleton, S. Pazouki et al., “Assessment of vascularity in histological sections: effects of methodology and value as an index of angiogenesis in breast tumours,” Histochemical Journal, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 849–856, 1998. View at Scopus
  16. S. B. Fox and A. L. Harris, “Histological quantitation of tumor angiogenesis,” Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Et Immunologica Scandinavica, vol. 112, pp. 413–430, 2004.
  17. P. B. Vermeulen, G. Gasparini, S. B. Fox et al., “Second international consensus on the methodology and criteria of evaluation of angiogenesis quantification in solid human tumours,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1564–1579, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. S. Hansen, D. A. Grabau, F. B. Sørensen, M. Bak, W. Vach, and C. Rose, “The prognostic value of angiogenesis by Chalkley counting in a confirmatory study design on 836 breast cancer patients,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 139–146, 2000. View at Scopus
  19. A. J. Guidi, D. A. Berry, G. Broadwater et al., “Association of angiogenesis in lymph node metastases with outcome of breast cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 486–492, 2000. View at Scopus
  20. B. Nico, V. Benagiano, D. Mangieri, N. Maruotti, A. Vacca, and D. Ribatti, “Evaluation of microvascular density in tumors: pro and contra,” Histology and Histopathology, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 601–607, 2008. View at Scopus
  21. S. Hansen, F. B. Sørensen, W. Vach, D. A. Grabau, M. Bak, and C. Rose, “Microvessel density compared with the Chalkley count in a prognostic study of angiogenesis in breast cancer patients,” Histopathology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 428–436, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. H. P. Dhakal, A. Bassarova, B. Naume et al., “Breast carcinoma vascularity: a comparison of manual microvessel count and Chalkley count,” Histology and Histopathology, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1049–1059, 2009. View at Scopus
  23. S. B. Fox, R. D. Leek, K. Smith, J. Hollyer, M. Greenall, and A. L. Harris, “Tumor angiogenesis in node-negative breast carcinomas—relationship with epidermal growth factor receptor, estrogen receptor, and survival,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 109–116, 1994. View at Scopus
  24. S. B. Fox, R. D. Leek, M. P. Weekes, R. M. Whitehouse, K. C. Gatter, and A. L. Harris, “Quantitation and prognostic value of breast cancer angiogenesis: comparison of microvessel density, Chalkley count, and computer image analysis,” Journal of Pathology, vol. 177, no. 3, pp. 275–283, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. M. Barbareschi, N. Weidner, G. Gasparini et al., “Microvessel density quantification in breast carcinomas. Assessment by light microscopy vs. a computer-aided image analysis system,” Applied Immunohistochemistry, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 75–84, 1995. View at Scopus
  26. P. D. Kohlberger, A. Obermair, G. Sliutz et al., “Quantitative immunohistochemistry of factor VIII-related antigen in breast carcinoma: a comparison of computer-assisted image analysis with established counting methods,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 105, no. 6, pp. 705–710, 1996. View at Scopus
  27. C. A. W. Sullivan, S. Ghosh, I. T. Ocal, R. L. Camp, D. L. Rimm, and G. G. Chung, “Microvessel area using automated image analysis is reproducible and is associated with prognosis in breast cancer,” Human Pathology, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 156–165, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. S. Olewniczak, M. Chosia, B. Kołodziej, A. Kwas, A. Kram, and W. Domagała, “Angiogenesis as determined by computerised image analysis and the risk of early relapse in women with invasive ductal breast carcinoma,” Polish Journal of Pathology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 53–59, 2003. View at Scopus
  29. J. A. Belien, P. J. van Diest, and J. P. Baak, “Relationships between vascularization and proliferation in invasive breast cancer,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 189, no. 3, pp. 309–318, 1999.
  30. J. A. M. Beliën, S. Somi, J. S. De Jong, P. J. Van Diest, and J. P. A. Baak, “Fully automated microvessel counting and hot spot selection by image processing of whole tumour sections in invasive breast cancer,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 184–192, 1999. View at Scopus
  31. N. T. Kim, N. Elie, B. Plancoulaine, P. Herlin, and M. Coster, “An original approach for quantification of blood vessels on the whole tumour section,” Analytical Cellular Pathology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 63–75, 2003. View at Scopus
  32. C. F. Chantrain, Y. A. DeClerck, S. Groshen, and G. McNamara, “Computerized quantification of tissue vascularization using high-resolution slide scanning of whole tumor sections,” Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 151–158, 2003. View at Scopus
  33. L. T. G. Mikalsen, H. P. Dhakal, Ø. S. Bruland, J. M. Nesland, and D. R. Olsen, “Quantification of angiogenesis in breast cancer by automated vessel identification in CD34 immunohistochemical sections,” Anticancer Research, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 4053–4060, 2011. View at Scopus
  34. I. Zlobec and A. Lugli, “Invasive front of colorectal cancer: dynamic interface of pro-/anti-tumor factors,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 15, no. 47, pp. 5898–5906, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. P. Gong, Y. Wang, G. Liu, J. Zhang, and Z. Wang, “New insight into ki67 expression at the invasive front in breast cancer,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 1, Article ID e54912, 2013.
  36. J. W. Pollard, “Macrophages define the invasive microenvironment in breast cancer,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 623–630, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. H. Ueno, A. M. Jones, K. H. Wilkinson, J. R. Jass, and I. C. Talbot, “Histological categorisation of fibrotic cancer stroma in advanced rectal cancer,” Gut, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 581–586, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. H. Chauhan, A. Abraham, J. R. A. Phillips, J. H. Pringle, R. A. Walker, and J. L. Jones, “There is more than one kind of myofibroblast: analysis of CD34 expression in benign, in situ, and invasive breast lesions,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 271–276, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. L. Hlatky, P. Hahnfeldt, and J. Folkman, “Clinical application of antiangiogenic therapy: microvessel density, what it does and doesn't tell us,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 94, no. 12, pp. 883–893, 2002. View at Scopus
  40. S. Sharma, M. C. Sharma, and C. Sarkar, “Morphology of angiogenesis in human cancer: a conceptual overview, histoprognostic perspective and significance of neoangiogenesis,” Histopathology, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 481–489, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. P. Fritz, S. Klenk, S. Goletz et al., “Clinical impacts of histological subtyping primary breast cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 5137–5144, 2010. View at Scopus
  42. J. Oh, R. Takahashi, S. Kondo et al., “The membrane-anchored MMP inhibitor RECK is a key regulator of extracellular matrix integrity and angiogenesis,” Cell, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 789–800, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. J. F. Simpson, C. Ahn, H. Battifora, and J. M. Esteban, “Endothelial area as a prognostic indicator for invasive breast carcinoma,” Cancer, vol. 77, no. 10, pp. 2077–2085, 1996.
  44. W. M. Schoell, D. Pieber, O. Reich et al., “Tumor angiogenesis as a prognostic factor in ovarian carcinoma: quantification of endothelial immunoreactivity by image analysis,” Cancer, vol. 80, no. 12, pp. 2257–2262, 1997.
  45. V. Fridman, C. Humblet, K. Bonjean, and J. Boniver, “Assessment of tumor angiogenesis in invasive breast carcinomas: absence of correlation with prognosis and pathological factors,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 437, no. 6, pp. 611–617, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. B. Weyn, W. A. A. Tjalma, P. Vermeylen, A. van Daele, E. Van Marck, and W. Jacob, “Determination of tumour prognosis based on angiogenesis-related vascular patterns measured by fractal and syntactic structure analysis,” Clinical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 307–316, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. D. Safwat, F. Habib, A. Elayat, N. Oweiss, S. Reffat, and S. Algaidi, “Morphometric and immunohistochemical study of angiogenic marker expressions in invasive ductal carcinomas of the human breast,” Folia Morphologica, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 144–155, 2009. View at Scopus
  48. B. B. Da Silva, P. V. Lopes-Costa, A. R. Dos Santos et al., “Comparison of three vascular endothelial markers in the evaluation of micro vessel density in breast cancer,” European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 285–288, 2009. View at Scopus
  49. K.-C. Chou, L.-C. Chang, H.-C. Su et al., “Immunohistochemical study of tumor angiogenesis in mucoepidermoid carcinoma,” Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 285–290, 2005. View at Scopus
  50. D. Wang, C. R. Stockard, L. Harkins et al., “Immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of neovascularization in tumor xenografts,” Biotechnic and Histochemistry, vol. 83, no. 3-4, pp. 179–189, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. S. Kumar, A. Ghellal, C. Li et al., “Breast carcinoma: vascular density determined using CD105 antibody correlates with tumor prognosis,” Cancer Research, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 856–861, 1999. View at Scopus
  52. S. E. Duff, C. Li, J. M. Garland, and S. Kumar, “CD105 is important for angiogenesis: evidence and potential applications,” FASEB Journal, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 984–992, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. J.-P. Dales, S. Garcia, L. Andrac et al., “Prognostic significance of angiogenesis evaluated by CD105 expression compared to CD31 in 905 breast carcinomas: correlation with long-term patient outcome,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1197–1204, 2004. View at Scopus
  54. F. Nassiri, M. D. Cusimano, B. W. Scheithauer et al., “Endoglin (CD105): a review of its role in angiogenesis and tumor diagnosis, progression and therapy,” Anticancer Research, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 2283–2290, 2011. View at Scopus
  55. A. Radu, C. Pichon, P. Camparo et al., “Expression of follicle-stimulating hormone receptor in tumor blood vessels,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 363, no. 17, pp. 1621–1630, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. R. Cairns, I. Papandreou, and N. Denko, “Overcoming physiologic barriers to cancer treatment by molecularly targeting the tumor microenvironment,” Molecular Cancer Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 61–70, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. A. Eberhard, S. Kahlert, V. Goede, B. Hemmerlein, K. H. Plate, and H. G. Augustin, “Heterogeneity of angiogenesis and blood vessel maturation in human tumors: implications for antiangiogenic tumor therapies,” Cancer Research, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1388–1393, 2000. View at Scopus