Offersen B V, Borre M, Overgaard J
Danish Cancer Society, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, bld. 5, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Eur J Cancer. 2003 May;39(7):881-90. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00663-9.
Chalkley counts have been suggested as the primary method for immunohistochemical evaluation of angiogenesis, however, most studies have used microvessel density (MVD). We present paired Chalkley and MVD estimates in carcinomas of the prostate, breast, bladder and lung. The clinical data has previously been reported. In prostate carcinomas, high MVD indicated poor prognosis, whereas high Chalkley counts in breast carcinoma were associated with a poor prognosis. In bladder carcinoma, high estimates using both methods showed good prognosis and were associated with a high degree of inflammation. Neither of the counts revealed prognostic value in lung carcinomas, where the vascular pattern indicated that this cancer was non-angiogenic. We highlight methodological problems with both counting methods. Since angiogenic processes in lung and bladder cancers may be different from those occuring in prostate cancer, we suggest that future analyses also focus on measuring angiogenic factors to obtain more information on the biology of angiogenesis.
有人建议将Chalkley计数作为血管生成免疫组化评估的主要方法，然而，大多数研究使用的是微血管密度（MVD）。我们给出了前列腺癌、乳腺癌、膀胱癌和肺癌中Chalkley计数与MVD的配对估计值。临床数据此前已报道。在前列腺癌中，高MVD表明预后不良，而乳腺癌中高Chalkley计数与预后不良相关。在膀胱癌中，两种方法的高估计值均显示预后良好，且与高度炎症相关。两种计数方法在肺癌中均未显示出预后价值，肺癌的血管模式表明该癌症是非血管生成性的。我们强调了两种计数方法的方法学问题。由于肺癌和膀胱癌中的血管生成过程可能与前列腺癌中的不同，我们建议未来的分析也应侧重于测量血管生成因子，以获取更多关于血管生成生物学的信息。
