Serum Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors A, C and D in Human Breast Tumors
Department of Oncology, Wroclaw Medical University, pl. Hirszfelda 12, Wroclaw, Poland.Pathology & Oncology Research (Impact Factor: 1.86). 10/2009; 16(3):337-44. DOI: 10.1007/s12253-009-9211-8
Available evidence suggests that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) a potent regulator of vasculogenesis and tumor angiogenesis may be a predictor of recurrence in breast cancer patients. We sought to determine whether VEGF serum levels (VEGF-A, VEGF-C and VEGF-D) in 377 patients with malignant and benign breast tumors differ and whether there is association between vascular growth factors, clinicopathologic features and prognosis. There was no significant difference in investigated circulating angiogenic markers between patients with malignant and non malignant lesions. We found strong correlation between VEGF-A and VEGF-D and between VEGF- C and VEGF-D. Besides serum VEGF-D levels and estrogen receptor (ER) expressions no other correlations between VEGF and clinicopathologic variables were observed. However, elevated VEGF-A and VEGF-C concentrations were associated with increased number of erythrocytes, leukocytes and platelets. In Cox model values of angiogenic serum markers and recognized prognostic markers in breast cancer, VEGF-C turned out as independent prognostic factor. Our study is the first analysis showing correlation between serum concentrations of three angiogenic factors: VEGF-A, VEGF-C, VEGF-D. Associations between angiogenic cytokines and number of blood cells may be due to release of VEGF from platelets and leucocytes. Prognostic role of VEGF is still uncertain, though VEGF-C has a potential to serve as a prognostic marker.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper deals with some practical considerations in computing 3D motion parameters of a rigid body (over 2 time-sequential frames) by the linear method given in . From a theoretic standpoint, this method is closely related to 2 previously described approaches [2-3]. In computation, there are 2 main questions : (1) whether an E matrix (from which the 3D motion parameters are found) can be uniquely determined (2) the sensitivity of solution to errors and other factors. Additional cases where E cannot be found are described. Numerical simulations of the effects of various factors on the solution accuracy for E (and the 3D motion parameters) are given.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In breast cancer, vascular endothelial growth factor C, transforming growth factor β, placental growth factor, and fibroblast growth factor (acidic and basic) promote angiogenesis and metastases. We tested the hypothesis that a propofol-paravertebral anesthetic (PPA) technique would attenuate postoperative changes in these angiogenic factors to a greater extent than balanced general anesthesia (GA) and morphine analgesia in women undergoing surgery for primary breast cancer. Forty women with primary breast cancer undergoing surgical excision were randomized to receive either standard GA or PPA technique. Venous blood was sampled before and at 24 h after surgery and serum analyzed. The primary endpoint was a preoperative versus postoperative change in vascular endothelial growth factor C and transforming growth factor β concentrations. Using a visual analog scale (median [25-75% interquartile range]), PPA patients (1 [0-2]) had less pain at 2 h (P = 0.02) than did GA patients (3 [2-5]). The mean postoperative change in vascular endothelial growth factor C concentrations among GA patients was 733 versus 27 pg/ml for PPA patients (difference, 706 [97.5% CI, 280-1,130] pg/ml, P = 0.001). In contrast, the mean postoperative change in transforming growth factor β concentration among GA patients was -163 versus 146 pg/ml for PPA patients (difference, 309 [97.5% CI, -474 to -143] pg/ml, P = 0.005). Concentrations of placental growth factor and fibroblast growth factor, both acidic and basic, were undetectable in serum. Anesthetic technique influences serum concentrations of factors associated with angiogenesis in primary breast cancer surgery.Anesthesiology 10/2010; 113(5):1118-25. DOI:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181f79a69 · 5.88 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) over-expression is frequently considered as a marker of both, a poor prognosis and of an aggressive tumour phenotype. Colorectal carcinoma is still one of the most lethal malignancies. Thus, our purpose was to study the expression of VEGF in tumour tissue (VEGF(t)) and in the tissue surrounding tumours (VEGF(nt)) and analyse its correlation with clinico-pathological features and overall survival. The study was designed to determine the concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor in tumour (n = 87) and non-tumour tissue (n = 230) obtained form the colorectal cancer patients. Accordingly, VEGF expression was studied in tissue homogenates by a quantitative sandwich ELISA method. The study was performed on 317 colorectal samples from 87 colorectal cancer patients. VEGF expression was higher in the tumour than in the non-tumour area (P < 0.0005). In areas of 5-10 cm around the tumours, VEGF expression was higher than the expression obtained in proximal or distal edge of the resection. VEGF(t) expression was lower in patients with stage I than in patients with stage II, III, or IV. However, a shorter overall survival time was evident when the ratio obtained between VEGF expression in the tumour and mean VEGF expression in the non-tumour areas of the same patient (VEGF(t)/VEGF(nt) ratio) was ≤2 (P = 0.019). VEGF expression in colorectal cancer tissue was higher in tumour than in non-tumour areas. VEGF(t) expression was lower in initial clinical stages. Indeed, patients who presented a VEGF(t)/VEGF(nt) ratio >2 survived longer. This is the first report showing that the clinical outcome could be related to the VEGF(nt) over-expression in colorectal cancer patients.European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 03/2011; 37(6):526-31. DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2011.02.005 · 3.01 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.