Distinguishing blood and lymph vessel invasion in breast cancer: a prospective immunohistochemical study
2006

Distinguishing Blood and Lymph Vessel Invasion in Breast Cancer

Sample size: 95 publication Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): G G Van den Eynden, I Van der Auwera, S J Van Laere, C G Colpaert, P Van Dam, L Y Dirix, P B Vermeulen, E A Van Marck

Primary Institution: University of Antwerp/University Hospital Antwerp

Hypothesis

The aim of this prospective study was to quantify and compare blood vessel invasion (BVI) and lymph vessel invasion (LVI) in a consecutive series of patients with breast cancer.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish between blood vessel invasion and lymph vessel invasion in breast cancer specimens using specific lymphatic endothelium markers.

Supporting Evidence

  • 69.5% of patients had lymph vessel invasion (LVI).
  • 37.9% of patients had blood vessel invasion (BVI).
  • Peritumoral LVI was the only independent determinant of lymph node metastases.
  • Lymphatic emboli were larger than blood vessel emboli.

Takeaway

This study looked at how cancer cells invade blood and lymph vessels in breast cancer, finding that lymph vessel invasion is more common and larger than blood vessel invasion.

Methodology

The study used immunohistochemical staining on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks from breast cancer resection specimens to assess blood and lymph vessel invasion.

Limitations

The study did not have access to clinico-pathological data for all patients, and some patients were excluded from the analysis.

Participant Demographics

{"mean_age":60.5,"age_range":"33.5–86.1","tumor_types":{"ductal":72,"lobular":10,"special_type":13},"tumor_grades":{"grade_I":31,"grade_II":35,"grade_III":29},"nodal_status":{"N0":52,"N1":27,"N2":10,"N3":5}}

Statistical Information

P-Value

{"lvi_bvi_association":0.02,"peritumoral_lvi_ln_metastases":0.002,"lvi_bvi_size_difference":0.001}

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/sj.bjc.6603152

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication