Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can Lymphatic Vascular Density Be Used in Determining Metastatic Spreading Potential of Tumor in Invasive Ductal Carcinomas?

  • Research
  • Published:
Pathology & Oncology Research

Abstract

Regional lymph node status is the primary parameter determining treatment strategies and prognoses in breast cancer. Lymphatic vessels in primary tumor tissue play a significant role in lymphatic metastasis. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation of intra- and peritumoral lymphatic microvessel densities (LVD) with prognostic parameters in breast cancer, including lymphatic invasion (LI). Lymphangiogenesis was investigated using D2-40 monoclonal antibody in 69 invasive ductal carcinoma cases who underwent mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection. Positively stained microvessels were counted at 400× in dense lymphatic vascular foci (hotspots). Tumor LI was established when at least one neoplastic cell cluster was clearly visible inside a D2-40-positive lymph vessel. Relationships were sought between clinicopathological parameters and mean LVD and LI in primary tumor tissue. Peritumoral LVD was markedly higher than intratumoral LVD (p < 0.001). No significant relationship was found between intratumoral LVD and clinicopathological parameters (p > 0.05). However, significant relationships were detected between peritumoral LVD and LVI [H&E] (p = 0.04), number of lymphatic invasion [n/mm2, D2-40] (p = 0.001), tumor size (p = 0.01), lymph node status (p = 0.03), and tumor stage (p = 0.04). The immunohistochemical determination of LI and LVD can contribute to the prediction of a tumor’s biological behavior in invasive ductal carcinomas. Peritumoral LVD in primary tumor tissue is closely related to parameters influencing the prognosis of a tumor.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

H&E:

Hematoxylin and eosin

IDC:

invasive ductal carcinomas

LECs:

lymphatic endothelial cells

LI:

lymphatic invasion

LVI:

lymphovascular invasion

LVD:

lymphatic vessel density

MVD:

microvessel density

mAb:

monoclonal antibody

AEC-DAB:

3-amino-9-ethylcarbazole–3,3′-diaminobenzidine

References

  1. Ellis LM, Fidler IJ (1995) Angiogenesis and breast cancer metastasis. Lancet 12:388–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kato T, Kameoka S, Kimura T et al (2003) The combination of angiogenesis and blood vessel invasion as a prognostic indicator in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 88:1900–1908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Casadio C, Luini A, Veronesi P et al (2007) Prognostic role of the extent of peritumoral vascular invasion in operable breast cancer. Ann Oncol 18:1632–1640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ogiya A, Kahn HJ, Marks A (2002) A new monoclonal antibody, D2-40, for detection of lymphatic invasion in primary tumors. Lab Invest 82:1255–1257

    Google Scholar 

  5. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al (2002) Breast. In: Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG, Morrow M (eds) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer, New York, pp 223–240

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne K et al (1999) Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligandbinding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:1474–1481

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yaziji H, Taylor CR (2007) Begin at the beginning, with the tissue! The key message underlying the ASCO/CAP Task-force Guideline Recommendations for HER2 testing. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 15:239–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weidner N (1995) Current pathologic methods for measuring intratumoral microvessel density within breast carcinoma and other solid tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 36:169–180

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Saad RS, Lindner JL, Liu Y et al (2009) Lymphatic vessel density as prognostic marker in esophageal adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 131:92–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vermeulen PB, Gasparini G, Fox SB et al (1996) Quantification of angiogenesis in solid human tumors: an international consensus on the morphology and criteria of evaluation. Eur J Cancer 32:2474–2484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Saad RS, Kordunsky L, Denning KL et al (2006) Lymphatic microvessel density as prognostic marker in colorectal carcinoma. Mod Pathol 19:1317–1323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kawamura L, Carvalho FM, Alves BG et al (2010) Association between intratumoral lymphatic microvessel density (LMVD) and clinicopathologic features in endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study. World J Surg Oncol 14(8):89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Mascarel I, MacGrogan G, Debled M et al (2009) D2-40 in breast cancer: should we detect more vascular emboli? Mod Pathol 22:216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Agarwal B, Saxena R, Moriyama A et al (2005) Lymphangiogenesis does not occur in breast cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1449–1455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P et al (2007) Prognostic role of the extent of peritumoral vascular invasion in operable breast cancer. Ann Oncol 18(10):1632–1640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Beasley NJ, Prevo R, Banerji S et al (2002) Intratumoral lymphangiogenesis and lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancer. Cancer Res 62:1315–1320

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yamauchi C, Hasebe T, Iwasaki M et al (2007) Accurate assessment of lymph vessel tumor emboli in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast according to tumor areas, and their prognostic significance. Hum Pathol 38:247–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nathanson SD (2003) Insights into the mechanisms of lymph node metastasis. Cancer 98:413–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Achen MG, Stacker SA (2008) Molecular control of lymphatic metastasis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1131:225–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shayan R, Achen MG, Stacker SA (2006) Lymphatic vessels in cancer metastasis: bridging the gaps. Carcinogenesis 27:1729–1738

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Van der Auwera I, Van den Eynden GG, Colpaert CG et al (2005) Tumor lymphangiogenesis in inflammatory breast carcinoma: a histomorphometric study. Clin Cancer Res 11:7637–7642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Donoghue JF, Lederman FL, Susil BJ et al (2007) Lymphangiogenesis of normal endometrium and endometrial adenocarcinoma. Hum Reprod 22:1705–1713

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Grossklaus DJ, Coffey CS, Shappell SB et al (2002) Percent of cancer in the biopsy set predicts pathological findings after prostatectomy. J Urol 167:2032–2035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Franchi A, Gallo O, Massi D et al (2004) Tumor lymphangiogenesis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a morphometric study with clinical correlations. Cancer 101:973–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Massi D, Puig S, Franchi A et al (2006) Tumour lymphangiogenesis is a possible predictor of sentinel lymph node status in cutaneous melanoma: a case-control study. J Clin Pathol 59:166–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Van der Schaft DW, Pauwels P, Hulsmans S et al (2007) Absence of lymphangiogenesis in ductal breast cancer at the primary tumor site. Cancer Lett 28:128–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schloppmann SF, Birner P, Studer P et al (2001) Lymphatic microvessel densitiy and lymphovascular invasion assessed by anti-podoplanin immunostaining in human breast cancer. Anticancer Res 21:2351–2355

    Google Scholar 

  29. Van der Auwera I, Cao Y, Tille JC et al (2006) First international consensus on the methodology of lymphangiogenesis quantification in solid human tumours. Br J Cancer 18:1611–1625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Britto AV, Schenka AA, Moraes-Schenka NG et al (2009) Immunostaining with D2-40 improves evaluation of lymphovascular invasion, but may not predict sentinel lymph node status in early breast cancer. BMC Cancer 8(9):109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marinho VF, Metze K, Sanches FS et al (2008) Lymph vascular invasion in invasive mammary carcinomas identified by the endothelial lymphatic marker D2-40 is associated with other indicators of poor prognosis. BMC Cancer 29(8):64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ito M, Moriya T, Ishida T et al (2007) Significance of pathological evaluation for lymphatic vessel invasion in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer 14:381–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. El-Gohary YM, Metwally G, Saad RS et al (2008) Prognostic significance of intratumoral and peritumoral lymphatic density and blood vessel density in invasive breast carcinomas. Am J Clin Pathol 129:578–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ejlertsen B, Jensen MB, Rank F et al (2009) Population-based study of peritumoral lymphovascular invasion and outcome among patients with operable breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:729–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Arnaout-Alkarain A, Kahn HJ, Narod SA et al (2007) Significance of lymph vessel invasion identified by the endothelial lymphatic marker D2-40 in node negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 20:183–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Beasley N, Prevo R, Banerji S et al (2002) Intratumoral lymphangiogenesis and lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancer. Cancer Res 62:1315–1320

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Dadras SS, Bertoncini J, Brown L et al (2003) Tumor lymphangiogenesis: a novel prognostic indicator for cutaneous melanoma metastasis and survival. Am J Pathol 162:1951–1960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Van den Eynden GG, Van der Auwera I, Van Laere SJ et al (2006) Induction of lymphangiogenesis in and around axillary lymph node metastases of patients with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 20:1362–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Van den Eynden GG, Van der Auwera I, Van Laere SJ et al (2007) Comparison of molecular determinants of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in lymph node metastases and in primary tumours of patients with breast cancer. J Pathol 213:56–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mylona E, Nomikos A, Alexandrou P et al (2007) Lymphatic and blood vessel morphometry in invasive breast carcinomas: relation with proliferation and VEGF-C and -D proteins expression. Histol Histopathol 22:825–835

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mohammed RA, Ellis IO, Elsheikh S et al (2009) Lymphatic and angiogenic characteristics in breast cancer: morphometric analysis and prognostic implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113:261–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Witte MH, Jones K, Wilting J et al (2006) Structure function relationships in the lymphatic system and implications for cancer biology. Cancer Metastasis Rev 6:159–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Williams CS, Leek RD, Robson AM et al (2003) Absence of lymphangiogenesis and intratumoural lymph vessels in human metastatic breast cancer. J Pathol 200:195–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P et al (2007) Prognostic role of the extent of peritumoral vascular invasion in operable breast cancer. Ann Oncol 18:1632–1640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Choi WW, Lewis MM, Lawson D et al (2005) Angiogenic and lymphangiogenic microvessel density in breast carcinoma: correlation with clinicopathologic parameters and VEGF-family gene expression. Mod Pathol 18:143–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, Turkey

    Nilufer Onak Kandemir, Figen Barut, Sibel Bektas & Sukru Oguz Ozdamar

Authors
  1. Nilufer Onak Kandemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Figen Barut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sibel Bektas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sukru Oguz Ozdamar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilufer Onak Kandemir.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kandemir, N.O., Barut, F., Bektas, S. et al. Can Lymphatic Vascular Density Be Used in Determining Metastatic Spreading Potential of Tumor in Invasive Ductal Carcinomas?. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 18, 253–262 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-011-9436-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-011-9436-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation