The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Women with Breast Cancer
Abstract
We performed a meta-analysis of all 87 published studies linking intratumoral microvessel density (MVD), reflecting angiogenesis, to relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). With median MVD as cutoff, MVD impact was measured by risk ratio (RR) between the two survival distributions. Seventeen studies did not mention survival data or fit inclusion criteria. Twenty-two were multiple publications of the same series, leaving 43 independent studies (8936 patients). MVD was assessed by immunohistochemistry, using antibodies against factor VIII (27 studies; n = 5262), CD31 (10 studies; n = 2296), or CD34 (8 studies; n = 1726). MVD might be a better prognostic factor when assessed by CD31 or CD34 versus factor VIII (P = 0.11). For RFS, statistical calculations were performed in 25 studies (6501 patients). High MVD significantly predicted poor survival [RR = 1.54 for RFS and OS with the same 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29–1.84]. Twenty-two studies analyzed separately lymph node-negative patients (n = 3580), for whom predictors of poor survival are requested. This latter meta-analysis included 15 studies for RFS (2727 patients) and 11 for OS (1926 patients). High MVD significantly predicted poor survival [RR = 1.99 for RFS (95% CI, 1.33–2.98) and RR = 1.54 for OS (95% CI, 1.01–2.33)]. Between-study variations could result from patient selection criteria, techniques to stain and count microvessels, and cutoff selection. MVD was a significant although weak prognostic factor in women with breast cancer. Standardization of MVD assessment is needed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast Cancer
van de Vijver, M. J., He, Y. D., van 't Veer, L. J., Dai, H., Hart, A. A. M., Voskuil, D. W., Schreiber, G. J., Peterse, J. L., Roberts, C., Marton, M. J., et al. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa021967 · Cited by 6,488
Tumor Angiogenesis and Metastasis — Correlation in Invasive Breast Carcinoma
Weidner, N., Semple, J. P., Welch, W. R., & Folkman, J. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199101033240101 · Cited by 5,627
Parmar, M. K. B., Torri, V., & Stewart, L. (1998) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8 · Cited by 4,802
Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases
Carter, C. L., Allen, C., & Henson, D. E. (1989) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<181::aid-cncr2820630129>3.0.co;2-h · Cited by 2,288
Weidner, N., Folkman, J., Pozza, F., Bevilacqua, P., Allred, E. N., Moore, D. H., Meli, S., & Gasparini, G. (1992) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/84.24.1875 · Cited by 1,775
Stampfer, M. J., & Colditz, G. A. (1991) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/0091-7435(91)90006-p · Cited by 1,600
Bias and causal associations in observational research
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07451-2 · Cited by 1,553
Association of macrophage infiltration with angiogenesis and prognosis in invasive breast carcinoma.
Leek, R., Lewis, C. E., Whitehouse, R. M., Greenall, M. J., Clarke, J., & Harris, A. L. (1996) · PubMed · Cited by 1,187
Dangers of Using "Optimal" Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic Factors
Altman, D. G., Lausen, B., Sauerbrei, W., & Schumacher, M. (1994) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/86.11.829 · Cited by 1,143
Cited by
Influence of tumour micro-environment heterogeneity on therapeutic response
Junttila, M. R., & de Sauvage, F. J. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12626 · Cited by 2,694
Evaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews
Hayden, J. A., Côté, P., & Bombardier, C. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010 · Cited by 1,452
DeNardo, D. G., Barreto, J. B., Andreu, P., Vasquez, L., Tawfik, D., Kolhatkar, N., & Coussens, L. M. (2009) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2009.06.018 · Cited by 1,353
Martinet, L., Garrido, I., Filleron, T., Le Guellec, S., Bellard, E., Fournie, J.-J., Rochaix, P., & Girard, J.-P. (2011) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-0431 · Cited by 516
Tertiary lymphoid structures, drivers of the anti‐tumor responses in human cancers
Dieu‐Nosjean, M., Giraldo, N. A., Kaplon, H., Germain, C., Fridman, W. H., & Sautès‐Fridman, C. (2016) · Immunological Reviews · doi:10.1111/imr.12405 · Cited by 417
Metadata
- Authors
- Uzzan, B., Nicolas, P., Cucherat, M., & Perret, G.-Y.
- Venue
- Cancer Research
- Published
- 2004-05-01
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2941-2955
- ISSN
- 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-7445
- OpenAlex
- W2100608628
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 132
- FWCI
- 7.33
- 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: Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Women with Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/0008-5472.can-03-1957
- The paper
- Uzzan, B., Nicolas, P., Cucherat, M., & Perret, G.-Y. (2004). Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Women with Breast Cancer. Cancer Research. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-03-1957
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.
