Relationships between different measurements of vascularity and clinico-pathological parameters in breast cancer

N Pendleton, S Pazouki, E Heerkens, R L Smither, D M Chisholm, J V Moore, A Howell, M A Horan, A M Schor

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    10 Citations (Scopus)


    Microvascular density has been put forward as an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer, with high levels indicating poorer prognosis. However, various studies have failed to confirm its prognostic value. The reasons for the contradictory results are not known, but it is believed that methodological differences are responsible. To test this hypothesis, we have used four different methods of assessing vascularity (average and highest microvascular density, microvascular volume and image analysis of vascular area) and related them to known prognostic factors in 51 cases of breast cancer NOS. All four methods showed a significant correlation with each other, with the exception of image analysis vs microvascular volume. The average microvascular density was significantly lower in p53 positive compared to negative tumours (median 38.4 and 66.2; IQR 31.1 and 49.4, respectively, p < 0.05). Vascularity, measured by the four methods, was not associated with nodal status or any other parameter examined.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)4565-8
    Number of pages4
    JournalAnticancer Research
    Issue number6B
    Publication statusPublished - 1998


    • Aged
    • Breast Neoplasms/blood supply
    • Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/blood supply
    • Female
    • Humans
    • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
    • Lymphatic Metastasis
    • Microcirculation/pathology
    • Microscopy, Fluorescence
    • Middle Aged
    • Neoplasm Invasiveness
    • Neoplasm Staging
    • Prognosis
    • Receptor, ErbB-2/analysis
    • Receptors, Estrogen/analysis
    • Receptors, Progesterone/analysis
    • Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/analysis


    Dive into the research topics of 'Relationships between different measurements of vascularity and clinico-pathological parameters in breast cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this