Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchor, Ana M
dc.contributor.authorPendleton, N
dc.contributor.authorPazouki, S
dc.contributor.authorSmither, Rachel L
dc.contributor.authorMorris, J
dc.contributor.authorLessan, Khashayar
dc.contributor.authorHeerkens, Egidius
dc.contributor.authorChandrachud, L M
dc.contributor.authorCarmichael, G
dc.contributor.authorAdi, M
dc.contributor.authorChisholm, D M
dc.contributor.authorStevenson, H
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-23T12:57:10Z
dc.date.available2010-02-23T12:57:10Z
dc.date.issued1998-12
dc.identifier.citationAssessment of vascularity in histological sections: effects of methodology and value as an index of angiogenesis in breast tumours. 1998, 30 (12):849-56 Histochem. J.en
dc.identifier.issn0018-2214
dc.identifier.pmid10100727
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/92716
dc.description.abstractThe aims of this study were to (a) determine how the quantification of blood vessels in histological sections (vascularity) is affected by the methodology used and (b) assess the value of vascularity as an index of angiogenesis by comparing tumour and normal breast tissue. Archival specimens of breast, lung and oral carcinoma, oral dysplasia and normal breast tissue were used to test the effects of the following experimental variables on vascularity: pretreatment of the sections (enzymatic digestion, heating), endothelial markers (von Willebrand factor and CD31 antibodies), method of quantification (highest microvascular density, average microvascular density and microvascular volume) and interobserver variations. All the variables examined significantly affected the estimated vascularity; this depended on the type of tissue and method used. The pretreatment of the sections before staining was the most important variable, altering the vascularity ranking of the tumours. Vascularity in breast tumours was similar to that of the normal breast intralobular stroma, suggesting that an area of high microvascular density in the tumour does not necessarily represent tumour-induced angiogenesis. Contradictory results have been published regarding the value of vascularity as a tumour prognostic factor. Our results suggest that statistically significant differences in vascularity values are most likely to arise from failure to optimize the staining protocol and from the method used to assess vascularity.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectBreast Canceren
dc.subject.meshAntigens, CD31
dc.subject.meshBlood Vessels
dc.subject.meshBreast
dc.subject.meshBreast Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Ductal, Breast
dc.subject.meshEndopeptidases
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshImmunohistochemistry
dc.subject.meshMicrotomy
dc.subject.meshMicrowaves
dc.subject.meshMouth Diseases
dc.subject.meshNeovascularization, Pathologic
dc.subject.meshObserver Variation
dc.subject.meshPronase
dc.subject.meshSeverity of Illness Index
dc.subject.meshStaining and Labeling
dc.subject.meshTrypsin
dc.subject.meshvon Willebrand Factor
dc.titleAssessment of vascularity in histological sections: effects of methodology and value as an index of angiogenesis in breast tumours.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentOral Diseases Group, Dental School, University of Dundee, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalThe Histochemical Journalen
html.description.abstractThe aims of this study were to (a) determine how the quantification of blood vessels in histological sections (vascularity) is affected by the methodology used and (b) assess the value of vascularity as an index of angiogenesis by comparing tumour and normal breast tissue. Archival specimens of breast, lung and oral carcinoma, oral dysplasia and normal breast tissue were used to test the effects of the following experimental variables on vascularity: pretreatment of the sections (enzymatic digestion, heating), endothelial markers (von Willebrand factor and CD31 antibodies), method of quantification (highest microvascular density, average microvascular density and microvascular volume) and interobserver variations. All the variables examined significantly affected the estimated vascularity; this depended on the type of tissue and method used. The pretreatment of the sections before staining was the most important variable, altering the vascularity ranking of the tumours. Vascularity in breast tumours was similar to that of the normal breast intralobular stroma, suggesting that an area of high microvascular density in the tumour does not necessarily represent tumour-induced angiogenesis. Contradictory results have been published regarding the value of vascularity as a tumour prognostic factor. Our results suggest that statistically significant differences in vascularity values are most likely to arise from failure to optimize the staining protocol and from the method used to assess vascularity.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record