The angiogenic "vascular endothelial growth factor/flk-1(KDR) receptor" pathway in patients with endometrial carcinoma - Prognostic and therapeutic implications
A. Giatromanolaki et al., The angiogenic "vascular endothelial growth factor/flk-1(KDR) receptor" pathway in patients with endometrial carcinoma - Prognostic and therapeutic implications, CANCER, 92(10), 2001, pp. 2569-2577
BACKGROUND. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an important endot
helial cell mitogen associated with increased angiogenesis and aggressive t
umor behavior, Its stimulating effect on endothelial cells basically is dep
endent on the presence of specific VEGF receptors, such as the flk-1(KDR) r
eceptor. This study investigates the roles of VEGF and of a functionally in
tact angiogenic pathway "VEGF/flk-1 (KDR)," in patients with endometrial ca
rcinoma and their significance in prognosis and therapy.
METHODS. A series of 121 endometrial carcinomas were studied. The expressio
n of VEGF by endometrial tumor cells was assessed using the monoclonal anti
body (MoAb) VG1. VEGF/KDR complexes on tumor endothelium or activated micro
vessel density (aMVD) were identified using the MoAb 11B5. In addition, the
standard microvessel density (sMVD) was assessed with anti-CD31. In all tu
mors, the alkaline phosphatase/antialkaline phosphatase technique was emplo
yed. A Fisher exact test or an unpaired, two-tailed t test was used for tes
ting correlations between categoric tumor variables, whereas a log-rank tes
t was used to determine statistical differences between life tables. A Cox
proportional hazards model was used to assess the effect of tumor variables
on overall survival.
RESULTS. Cytoplasmic VEGF expression in > 50% of tumor cells was associated
significantly with aMVD (P < 0.0001) and with sMVD (P < 0.003). In univari
ate survival analysis, VEGF (P = 0.0002), aMVD (P = 0.001), and sMVD (P = 0
.0009) were significant prognostic variables. Equally important were the hi
stologic parameters tumor type (P = 0.03), tumor grade (P = 0.003), and dis
ease stage (P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, disease stage was the mo
st important independent prognostic factor (P < 0.0001), followed by VEGF/K
DR (P < 0.01), and VEGF (P < 0.04). Furthermore, VEGF and VEGF/KDR were the
only independent prognostic variables for patients with Stage I endometrio
id adenocarcinoma.
CONCLUSIONS. sMVD and the angiogenic factor VEGF are important indicators o
f a poor prognosis in patients with endometrial carcinoma. VEGF/KDR complex
es define a subgroup of patients with endometrial carcinoma with an even wo
rse prognosis. (C) 2001 American Cancer Society.