The methodology of quantitation of microvessel density and prognostic value of neovascularization associated with long‐term survival in Japanese patients with breast cancer

The present study updates results on methodology of quantitation of tumor neovascularization and those on the prognostic value of microvessel density (MVD) in breast cancer tissue previously published in the World J. Surg. 21: 49–56, 1997. The follow‐up period of observation of the series was extended to 20 years, and new biological indicators (i.e., proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), c‐erbB‐2, and p53) were included in the analysis. There were 109 patients with primary breast cancer, from 1971 to 1979, followed up for a median of 14 years (range, 1–20). A representative median longitudinal section of each breast tumor was immunohistochemically stained with factor VIII‐related antigen and analyzed. The three methods of identifying MVD were: (1) average microvessel count (AMC)/mm2, (2) central microvessel count (CMC)/mm2, and (3) highest microvessel count (HMC)/mm2. Thirty‐one patients (28.4%) died of breast cancer. There was a relationship between MVD and peritumor blood vessel invasion (AMC: p = 0.0114, CMC: p = 0.0319, and HMC: p = 0.0009). However, there was no relationship between MVD and other factors. Univariate analysis showed that node status (p < 0.0001), histological grade (p < 0.0001), clinical tumor size (T) (p = 0.0002), PCNA (p = 0.0033), p53 (p = 0.0043), mitotic grade (p = 0.0092), AMC (p = 0.0214), and peritumor lymphatic vessel invasion (p = 0.0467) were significantly predictive of overall survival. HMC was borderline significant (p = 0.0702), while CMC and c‐erbB‐2 were not significant. Multivariate analysis showed that T (p = 0.0005), node status (p = 0.0053), and AMC (p = 0.0485) were independent factors, but neither CMC nor HMC was independent. AMC, a significant independent prognostic factor, might be a better method than the others for evaluating angiogenesis, but further and larger studies are warranted.