Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ħÀ±¼º À¯¹æ¾ÏÁ¾ÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼Ç÷°ü¹Ðµµ ¹× Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ¹ßÇö Microvessel Density and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in Invasive Breast Carcinomas

´ëÇѺ´¸®ÇÐȸÁö 2000³â 34±Ç 2È£ p.138 ~ 144
Àü¹Ì¿µ, ¼³¹Ì¿µ, ¹Ú°æ¼±, À±Çý°æ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Àü¹Ì¿µ ( Jeon Mi-Yeong ) 
ºÎ»ê½Ã¹Îº´¿ø Çغκ´¸®°ú

¼³¹Ì¿µ ( Sol Mee-Young ) 
ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ º´¸®Çб³½Ç
¹Ú°æ¼± ( Park Kyung-Sun ) 
ºÎ»ê¹éº´¿ø Çغκ´¸®°ú
À±Çý°æ ( Yoon Hye-Kyoung ) 
ºÎ»ê¹éº´¿ø Çغκ´¸®°ú

Abstract


Angiogenesis is essential for tumor growth and metastasis, however, the prognostic value of neovascularization is undetermined. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic significance of microvessel density (MVD) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression in breast carcinomas. An immunohistochemical stains for CD 31 (DAKO) to estimate MVD and VEGF (Santa Cruz) were done on 40 cases of invasive breast carcinoma. MVD was calculated as an average count of vessels per 200 power field in the most vascularized areas. VEGF expression was interpreted according to staining intensity and number of positive cells. Mean MVD was 35, and MVD was not correlated with lymph node metastasis or histologic grade, but high MVD (mean MVD£¾35) showed an increasing tendency in cases with larger size, negative ER/PR, and positive cathepsin D. All of the cases showed VEGF expression, but VEGF expression was not correlated with tumor size, histologic grade, lymph node metastasis, ER/PR status, and cathepsin D expression. These results suggest that MVD and VEGF expressions are not reliable prognostic factors.

Å°¿öµå

Microvessel density;VEGF;Breast carcinoma

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS