[969] Microvascular Pericyte Density Predicts Prostate Cancer Progression

Ugur Ozerdem, Eva M Wojcik, Cagatay Ersahin, Guliz A Barkan. Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Background: The progression of tumor neovascularization is critical to continued tumor progression. It is critical to note that the walls of neovascular blood vessel capillaries are composed of two principal cell types: vascular endothelial cells and pericytes. Pericytes form an outer sheath surrounding the endothelial cells. Nascent pericytes express PDGF receptor-beta while nascent blood vessels and lymphatic endothelial cells express CD34. This investigation deals with establishing a quantitative analysis of PDGF receptor-beta and CD34 expression in prostate cancer as a tangible prognostic tool.
Design: We used a tissue microarray, which represented 49 patients with Gleason scores 0 (normal prostate tissue), 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. These prostate cancer samples represented prognostic stages II, III, and IV (AJCC Manual 2010, p. 457). Tissue microarray slides were immunostained with PDGF receptor-beta and CD34. Immunostained slides were imaged with a high resolution digital camera. Digital images were analyzed by using NIH ImageJ1.44 image analysis software to quantify PDGF receptor-beta and CD34 expression. Microvascular density was measured for each patient as a percentage of the area covered by pericytes or endothelial cells to the area of the microarray spot. Statistical analyses were performed using Graphpad Prism. The microvascular pericyte density (MVPD) or microvascular endothelial density (MVED) scores in each position of tissue microarray were compared across each prognostic group.
Results: The mean MVPD score was 0.70%, 0.98%, 2.00%, 2.87%, 3.79%, and 4.33% in patients with Gleason scores 0, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively. MVPD was significantly different between patients with different Gleason scores (p<0.001). The mean MVPD score was 2.05%, 3.02%, and 3.30% in patients with stage II, III, and IV prostate cancer, respectively (p<0.05). The mean MVED score was 0.74%, 1.19%, 2.04%, 3.02%, 3.97%, and 4.44% in patients with Gleason scores 0, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively. MVED was significantly different between patients with different Gleason scores (p<0.001). Mean MVED was 2.31%, 3.23%, and 3.29% for patients with stage II, III, and IV prostate cancer, respectively (p<0.05).
Conclusions: MVPD and MVED scores can easily be utilized as practical prognostic tools in prostate cancer. Potentially, MVPD and MVED scores can be used to identify the patients who would benefit from targeted anti-pericyte, anti-endothelium, and anti-lymphangiogenesis therapies. This project has been supported by an institutional research grant.
Category: Genitourinary (including renal tumors)

Monday, March 19, 2012 9:30 AM

Poster Session I Stowell-Orbison/Surgical Pathology/Autopsy Awards Poster Session # 156, Monday Morning

 

Close Window