Lymphatic and angiogenic characteristics in breast cancer: morphometric analysis and prognostic implications

Mohammed, Rabab; Ellis, Ian O.; Elsheikh, Somaia; Paish, Emma C.; Martin, Stewart G.

doi:10.1007/s10549-008-9936-1

Cited by 51 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same findings were reported in many previous studies [21][22][23][24] and from previous findings by our group. 2,7,8,15,25,26 The rate of LI in the current study was 47%, which lies in the same range as that reported in other studies: 28%, 20 46%, 13 and 55% 27 of patients with LN-positive BC in different patient cohorts. In our specimens, most of the LI lesions were detected in the peritumoral vessels (76% of LI-positive specimens).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…1 Such tumors therefore receive more intense therapy than tumors with no lymphovascular invasion in the same disease stage. [2][3][4] The term 'lymphovascular invasion' refers to invasion of either blood vessels or lymph vessels. Invasion of any of these vessels by tumor cells is simply known as lymphovascular invasion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Invasion of any of these vessels by tumor cells is simply known as lymphovascular invasion. 2 The current study used lymph vesselspecific marker (anti-podoplanin) for assessment of invasion of lymph vessels only and will be referred to as 'lymphatic invasion' (LI).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In previous reports, LI was found to be independent poor prognostic factor in lymph node (LN)-negative breast cancer patients and has been recommended to be added to clinical management tools such as the 'Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI)'. 8 However, there still remains controversy in the literature regarding the relevance of assessment of vascular invasion in LN-positive BC.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prognostic significance of lymphatic invasion in lymph node-positive breast carcinoma: findings from a large case series with long-term follow-up using immunohistochemical endothelial marker

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The poor prognostic significance of lymphatic invasion (LI) in breast carcinoma (BC) as a whole and in lymph node (LN)-negative patients in particular has been recognized in several studies; however, its prognostic role in LN-positive patients is still questionable. Aim of the current study was to assess prognostic role of LI in LN-positive BC specimens. Sections from non-selected 557 LN-positive BC specimens were stained with antibody to podoplanin/D2-40. LI was identified and correlated with clinicopathological features and patients' outcome. Twenty-year overall survival (OS), disease-free interval (DFI), and development of distant metastasis (DM) or recurrence were known for all patients. LI was detected in 262/557 (47%) of specimens ranging from 1 to 350 lesion per tumor section. Its presence was associated with higher grade tumors (Po0.0001), negative hormonal receptors (Po0.0001), high HER-2 expression (P ¼ 0.006), and with increased number of positive LNs (P ¼ 0.019). In the whole LN-positive BC, presence of LI was a poor prognostic factor for OS, DFI, and development of DM both in univariate and in multivariate analysis. In further stratification of patients, LI was associated with poorer prognosis in patients with single positive LN and not in patients with 41 positive LN. In T1N1 stage, LI was highly associated with poor OS (P ¼ 0.002), DFI (Po0.0001), and DM (Po0.0001). In T2N1 patients, LI was associated only with poorer DFI (P ¼ 0.037) but not with death or DM. In the two former patient groups, LI lost significance in multivariate analysis. In conclusion, LI is a poor prognostic factor in LN-positive BC particularly for patients having single positive LN. LI therefore would add further prognostic significance when considered in treatment in those patients. We recommend incorporation of LI in breast carcinoma staging and in prognostic indices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prognostic significance of lymphatic invasion in lymph node-positive breast carcinoma: findings from a large case series with long-term follow-up using immunohistochemical endothelial marker

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, upon multivariate analysis, only tumour grade, lymph-node status and the presence of vascular invasion, but not lymph-vessel density, were found to be independent poor prognostic factors. 20 The presence of vascular invasion, as detected by standard H&E methodology, has been well characterised as an indicator of tumour types with higher metastatic potential, greater risk of recurrence and death from the disease, [21][22][23] and has been used to guide adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with node-negative breast cancer. 24 Vascular invasion includes both lymphatic vascular invasion and blood vascular invasion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lymphatic and blood vessels in basal and triple-negative breast cancers: characteristics and prognostic significance

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basal and triple-negative breast cancer phenotypes are characterised by unfavourable biological behaviour and outcome. Although certain studies have examined their pathological and molecular profile, the vascular characteristics of lymphatic and blood vessels have not been examined. Immunohistochemical staining with podoplanin, CD34 and CD31 was used to examine lymphatic and microvessel density, as well as vascular invasion in 197 basal-like and in 99 triple-negative breast tumours and compared against 200 non-basal and 334 non-triple-negative cases. All specimens were lymph node negative. Vascular invasion was identified as blood or lymphatic vascular invasion by the differential expression of markers. All measurements were correlated with clinicopathological features and prognosis. No significant difference was detected between the basal and triplenegative groups in terms of lymphatic or microvessel density or vascular invasion. However, both the basal and the triple-negative groups showed significantly higher microvessel density than did the non-basal and non-triple-negative groups (P ¼ 0.017 and Po0.001, respectively). Unlike microvessel density, no significant difference was detected in lymphatic density between the basal or triple-negative groups compared with their respective controls. Interestingly, vascular invasion, almost entirely lymphatic invasion, was detected in 27% of the basal and in 26% of the triple-negative groups with no significant difference in comparison with control groups. In both basal and triple negatives, vascular invasion was associated with poorer survival by univariate and multivariate analyses. The 20-year overall survival rate in basal-like tumours was 55% in vascular invasionpositive cases compared with 73% in vascular invasion-negative tumours (P ¼ 0.012), and 46% in triple-negative vascular invasion-positive compared with 79% in vascular invasion-negative tumours (P ¼ 0.001). Basal-like vs non-basal-like and triple-negative vs non-triple-negative tumours have similar vascular characteristics in terms of lymphatic vessel density and vascular invasion but higher microvessel density, suggesting that such groups may preferentially benefit from anti-angiogenic therapy. Vascular invasion was, in all phenotypes, almost entirely lymphatic vessel invasion and could stratify basal-like and triple-negative phenotypes into distinct prognostic groups.

show abstract

Nanosponges as an Emerging Platform for Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis

Gowda,

Ahmed,

Almoyad

et al. 2023

Adv Funct Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanosponges are unique sponge‐like carrier systems with numerous cavities and a mesh‐like network throughout their surface. They are categorized into three types based on the material of construction, i.e., polymer‐, inorganic‐, and bio‐derived material‐based nanosponges. Unlike conventional nanoparticles, nanosponges bear countless interconnected voids and mesh‐like network that enables maximum drug, imaging probe, or photosensitizer loading via absorption, encapsulation, conjugation, or complexion. The voids can be further sealed using suitable lipids or polymers to avoid leakage of drugs at the non‐target site, protect therapeutics from biological conditions, and control the release of therapeutics for a prolonged period. Recently, nanosponges have grasped the attention of researchers in the area of cancer by overcoming the drawbacks associated with the conventional delivery of immunotherapeutic, targeted therapeutic, and chemotherapeutic agents. Interestingly, several reports have also witnessed their potential in cancer theranostics. Owing to this supremacy, nanosponges could be an apt platform for cancer therapy and diagnosis. The current review discusses the general aspects, types, and preparation methods of nanosponges. In addition, the ambit of nanosponges in treating different types of cancer is meticulously discussed, along with detailed descriptions of their corresponding patents. Furthermore, the role of nanosponges in phototherapy and cancer theranostics are selectively canvassed.

show abstract

Lymphatic and angiogenic characteristics in breast cancer: morphometric analysis and prognostic implications

Cited by 51 publications

References 47 publications

Prognostic significance of lymphatic invasion in lymph node-positive breast carcinoma: findings from a large case series with long-term follow-up using immunohistochemical endothelial marker

Prognostic significance of lymphatic invasion in lymph node-positive breast carcinoma: findings from a large case series with long-term follow-up using immunohistochemical endothelial marker

Lymphatic and blood vessels in basal and triple-negative breast cancers: characteristics and prognostic significance

Nanosponges as an Emerging Platform for Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About