Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Angiogenesis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weidner N. Intratumor microvessel density as a prognostic factor in cancer. Am J Pathol 1995; 147: 9–19.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Srivastava A, Laidler P, Davies RP 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 1988; 133: 419–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Horak ER, 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 1992; 340: 1120–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiggins DL, Granai CO, Steinhoff MM, Calabresi P. Tumor angiogenesis as a prognostic factor in cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 56: 353–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrara N, Heinsohn H, Waldner CE et al. The regulation of blood-vessel growth by vascular endothelial growth factor. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1995; 752: 246–56.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Klagsbrun M, Soker S. VEGF/VPF: The angiogenic factor found? Curr Biol 1993; 3: 699–702.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dvorak HF, Brown LF, Detmar M, Dvorak AM. Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular hyperpermeability, and angiogenesis. Am J Pathol 1995; 146: 1029–39.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown LF, Berse B, Jackman RW et al. Expression of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) and its receptors in breast cancer. Hum Pathol 1995; 26: 86–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Boocock CA, Charnock-Jones DS, Sharkey AM et al. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors flt and KDR in ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 506–16.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Toi M, Kondo S, Suzuki H et al. Quantitative analysis of vascular endothelial growth factor in primary breast cancer. Cancer 1996; 77: 1101–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Obermair A, Kucera E, Mayerhofer K et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in human breast cancer: Correlation with disease-free survival. Int J Cancer 1997; 74: 455–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wu CC, Lee CN, Chen TM et al. Incremental angiogenesis assessed by color Doppler ultrasound in the tumorigenesis of ovarian neoplasms. Cancer 1994; 73: 1251–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng WF, Chen TM, Chen CA et al. Clinical application of intratumoral blood flow study in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 1998; 82: 1881–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng WF, Lee CN, Chu JS et al. Vascularity index as a novel parameter for the in vivo assessment of angiogenesis in patients with cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 85: 651–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hsieh FJ, Wu CC, Lee CN et al. Vascular patterns of gestational trophoblastic tumors by color Doppler ultrasound. Cancer 1994; 74: 2361–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng WF, Chen CA, Lee CN et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor in cervical carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 761–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bosari S, Lee AK, DeLellis RA et al. Microvessel quantitation and prognosis in invasive breast carcinoma. Hum Pathol 1992; 23: 755–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Centor RM, Schwartz JS. An evaluation of methods for estimating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Med Decis Making 1985; 5: 149–56.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tokumo K, Kodama J, Seki N et al. Different angiogenic pathways in human cervical cancers. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 68: 38–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith-McCune KK, Zhu Y, Darragh T. Angiogenesis in histologically benign squamous mucosa is a sensitive marker for nearby cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Angiogenesis 1998; 2: 135–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S et al. Breast lesions: Correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1996; 200: 639–49.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Degani H, Gusis V, Weinstein D et al. Mapping pathophysiological features of breast tumors by MRI at high spatial resolution. Nat Med 1997; 3: 780–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hawighorst H, Weikel W, Knapstein PG et al. Angiogenic activity of cervical carcinoma: Assessment by functional magnetic resonance imaging-based parameters and a histomorphological approach in correlation with disease outcome. Clin Cancer Res 1998; 4: 2305–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamura T, Tsukamoto N, Tsuruchi N et al. Multivariate analysis of the histopathologic prognostic factors of cervical cancer in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Cancer 1992; 69: 181–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Obermair A, Wanner C, Bilgi S et al. Tumor angiogenesis in stage IB cervical cancer: Correlation of microvessel density with survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178: 314–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Maniotis AJ, Folberg R, Hess A et al. Vascular channel formation by human melanoma cells in vivo and in vitro: Vasculogenic mimicry. Am J Pathol 1999; 155: 739–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Wen-Fang Cheng, Chien-Nan Lee, Chi-An Chen, Cheng-Che S. Kung, Chang-Yao Hsieh & Fon-Jou Hsieh

  2. Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Jan-Show Chu

Authors
  1. Wen-Fang Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chien-Nan Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chi-An Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan-Show Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cheng-Che S. Kung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chang-Yao Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fon-Jou Hsieh
    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

Cheng, WF., Lee, CN., Chen, CA. et al. Comparison between `in vivo' and `in vitro' methods for evaluating tumor angiogenesis using cervical carcinoma as a model. Angiogenesis 3, 295–304 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026575725754

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026575725754

Search

Navigation