Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 436

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Quantitation and prognostic value of breast cancer angiogenesis: Comparison of microvessel density, Chalkley count, and computer image analysis

Fox, Stephen B., Leek, Russel D., Weekes, Michael P., Whitehouse, Ruth M., Gatter, Kevin C., Harris, Adrian L.·1995·The Journal of Pathology

Abstract

In some studies of breast cancer, quantitation of immunohistochemically highlighted microvessel ‘hot spots’ has been shown to be a powerful prognostic tool. However, the antibody used, the number and size of the ‘hot spots’ assessed, and the stratification of patients into high and low vascular groups vary between studies. Furthermore, little is known about the relationship between microvessel density and other vascular parameters. These uncertainties and the laborious nature of the technique make it unsuitable for diagnostic practice. Both manual and computerized image analysis techniques were used in this study to examine the relationship between microvessel density and the vascular parameters in different sized microscopic fields in a pilot series of 30 invasive breast carcinomas. Automated pixel analysis of immunohistochemical staining, Chalkley point counting, and observer subjective vascular grading were also assessed as more rapid methods of measuring tumour vascularity. A Chalkley count was also performed on a further 211 invasive breast carcinomas. Significant correlations were observed between manual microvessel density and luminal perimeter (r=0·6, P=0·0004), luminal area (r=0·56, P=0·002), and microvessel number (r=0·57, P=0·0009) by computerized analysis. There were also significant correlations between the microscopic hot spots of 0·155 mm 2 and 0.848 mm 2 for microvessel number (r=0·81, P>0·00005), luminal perimeter (r=0·78, P<0·00005), and luminal area (r=0·65, P=0·0001). In addition, a significant correlation was observed between microvessel density and both subjective vascular grade (P=0·002) and Chalkley count (P=0·0001). A significant reduction in overall survival was observed between patients stratified by Chalkley count in both a univariate (P=0·02) and a multivariate (P=0·05) analysis in the 211 invasive breast carcinomas. These findings show that Chalkley counting is a rapid method of quantifying tumour angiogenesis and gives independent prognostic information which might be useful in diagnostic practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/path.1711770310

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 436

Metadata

Authors
Fox, S. B., Leek, R. D., Weekes, M. P., Whitehouse, R. M., Gatter, K. C., & Harris, A. L.
Venue
The Journal of Pathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-11
Volume
177
Issue
3
Pages
275-283
ISSN
  • 0022-3417 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9896
OpenAlex
W2003032376
Cited by
436
References
0
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitation and prognostic value of breast cancer angiogenesis: Comparison of microvessel density, Chalkley count, and computer image analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/path.1711770310
The paper
Fox, S. B., Leek, R. D., Weekes, M. P., Whitehouse, R. M., Gatter, K. C., & Harris, A. L. (1995). Quantitation and prognostic value of breast cancer angiogenesis: Comparison of microvessel density, Chalkley count, and computer image analysis. The Journal of Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1711770310

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.