Comparison between 'in vivo' and 'in vitro' methods for evaluating tumor angiogenesis using cervical carcinoma as a model

被引：8

作者：

Cheng W.-F. ^{[1
]}

Lee C.-N. ^{[1
]}

Chen C.-A. ^{[1
]}

Chu J.-S. ^{[2
]}

Kung C.-C.S. ^{[1
]}

Hsieh C.-Y. ^{[1
]}

Hsieh F.-J. ^{[1
,3
]}

机构：

[1] Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei

[2] Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei

[3] Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei

来源：

Angiogenesis | 1999年 / 3卷 / 4期

关键词：

Angiogenesis; Cervical carcinoma; Microvessel density; Power Doppler ultrasound; Vascular endothelial growth factor; Vascularity index;

D O I：

10.1023/A:1026575725754

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

The role of angiogenesis in tumorigenesis is widely accepted. Therefore, it is mandatory to develop a clinically useful method for assessing tumor angiogenesis. This study was designed to compare the 'in vivo' and 'in vitro' methods for assessing angiogenesis and to evaluate their clinical application using cervical carcinoma as a model. Ninety women with stages IB-IIA cervical carcinoma exhibiting visible cervical tumors by transvaginal ultrasound were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Vascularity index (VI) was assessed by power Doppler ultrasound and a quantitative image processing system. The microvessel density (MVD) of the excised tumors was immunohistochemically assessed. Both the enzyme immunoassay and immunohistochemistry methods were performed for assessing the protein levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in tumor tissues. Significantly higher VI, MVD and cytosol VEGF concentrations were detected in tumors with deep stromal invasion (≥1/2 thickness) (11.43 ± 7.25 vs. 5.87 ± 6.81, P < 0.001; 53.0 vs. 37.0, P = 0.006, 550.0 vs. 86.0 pg/mg, P < 0.001), lymphatic invasion (12.21 ± 7.89 vs. 6.86 ± 6.29, P < 0.001; 53.0 vs. 40.0, P = 0.038; 930.0 vs. 110.0 pg/mg, P = 0.002), and pelvic lymph node metastasis (17.15 ± 8.58 vs. 7.83 ± 6.41, P < 0.001; 54.0 vs. 39.0, P = 0.02; 964.0 vs. 131.0 pg/mg, P = 0.002). VEGF-rich tumors detected by immunohistochemistry also revealed higher VI (12.26 ± 7.96 vs. 8.05 ± 7.62, P = 0.012), MVD (53.0 vs. 37.5, P = 0.01) and cytosol VEGF levels (745.0 vs. 98.0 pg/mg, P = 0.002). The relationships between VI values, MVD values and cytosol VEGF concentrations were linear (VI vs. MVD, r = 0.38, P < 0.001; VI vs. VEGF, r = 0.78, P < 0.001; MVD vs. VEGF, r = 0.29, P = 0.006). As revealed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, VI is better than MVD and VEGF in predicting lymph node metastasis. In conclusion, there is histological, molecular and clinical evidence supporting VI as a useful 'in vivo' indicator of tumor angiogenesis, particularly for predicting lymph node metastases in cervical carcinomas.

引用

页码：295 / 304

页数：9

共 27 条

[1]

Weidner N., Intratumor microvessel density as a prognostic factor in cancer, Am J Pathol, 147, pp. 9-19, (1995)

[2]

Srivastava A., Laidler P., Davies R.P., Et al., The prognostic significance of tumor vascularity in intermediate-thickness (0.76-4.0 mm thick) skin melanoma. A quantitative histologic study, Am J Pathol, 133, pp. 419-423, (1988)

[3]

Weidner N., Semple J.P., Welch W.R., Folkman J., Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis - Correlation in invasive breast carcinoma, N Engl J Med, 324, pp. 1-8, (1991)

[4]

Horak E.R., Leek R., Klenk N., Et al., Angiogenesis, assessed by platelet/endothelial cell adhesion molecule antibodies, as indicator of node metastases and survival in breast cancer, Lancet, 340, pp. 1120-1124, (1992)

[5]

Wiggins D.L., Granai C.O., Steinhoff M.M., Calabresi P., Tumor angiogenesis as a prognostic factor in cervical carcinoma, Gynecol Oncol, 56, pp. 353-356, (1995)

[6]

Ferrara N., Heinsohn H., Waldner C.E., Et al., The regulation of blood-vessel growth by vascular endothelial growth factor, Ann N Y Acad Sci, 752, pp. 246-256, (1995)

[7]

Klagsbrun M., Soker S., VEGF/VPF: The angiogenic factor found?, Curr Biol, 3, pp. 699-702, (1993)

[8]

Dvorak H.F., Brown L.F., Detmar M., Dvorak A.M., Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular hyperpermeability, and angiogenesis, Am J Pathol, 146, pp. 1029-1039, (1995)

[9]

Brown L.F., Berse B., Jackman R.W., Et al., Expression of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) and its receptors in breast cancer, Hum Pathol, 26, pp. 86-91, (1995)

[10]

Boocock C.A., Charnock-Jones D.S., Sharkey A.M., Et al., Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors flt and KDR in ovarian carcinoma, J Natl Cancer Inst, 87, pp. 506-516, (1995)

← 1 2 3 →