• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Quantification of microvessels in canine lymph nodes

Z Tonar, GF Egger, K Witter, B Wolfesberger

. 2008 ; 71 (10) : 760-772.

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu hodnotící studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc11006706
E-zdroje

NLK Wiley Online Library (archiv) od 1996-01-01 do 2012-12-31

Quantification of microvessels in tumors is mostly based on counts of vessel profiles in tumor hot spots. Drawbacks of this method include low reproducibility and large interobserver variance, mainly as a result of individual differences in sampling of image fields for analysis. Our aim was to test an unbiased method for quantifying microvessels in healthy and tumorous lymph nodes of dogs. The endothelium of blood vessels was detected in paraffin sections by a combination of immunohistochemistry (von Willebrand factor) and lectin histochemistry (wheat germ agglutinin) in comparison with detection of basal laminae by laminin immunohistochemistry or silver impregnation. Systematic uniform random sampling of 50 image fields was performed during photo-documentation. An unbiased counting frame (area 113,600 microm(2)) was applied to each micrograph. The total area sampled from each node was 5.68 mm(2). Vessel profiles were counted according to stereological counting rules. Inter- and intraobserver variabilities were tested. The application of systematic uniform random sampling was compared with the counting of vessel profiles in hot spots. The unbiased estimate of the number of vessel profiles per unit area ranged from 100.5 +/- 44.0/mm(2) to 442.6 +/- 102.5/mm(2) in contrast to 264 +/- 72.2/mm(2) to 771.0 +/- 108.2/mm(2) in hot spots. The advantage of using systematic uniform random sampling is its reproducibility, with reasonable interobserver and low intraobserver variance. This method also allows for the possibility of using archival material, because staining quality is not limiting as it is for image analysis, and artifacts can easily be excluded. However, this method is comparatively time-consuming. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

000      
03288naa 2200397 a 4500
001      
bmc11006706
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20121113120231.0
008      
110405s2008 xxu e eng||
009      
AR
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Tonar, Zbyněk, $d 1976- $7 xx0074224
245    10
$a Quantification of microvessels in canine lymph nodes / $c Z Tonar, GF Egger, K Witter, B Wolfesberger
314    __
$a Department of Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University in Prague, Karlovarska 48, 301 66 Pilsen, Czech Republic. tonar@ntc.zcu.cz
520    9_
$a Quantification of microvessels in tumors is mostly based on counts of vessel profiles in tumor hot spots. Drawbacks of this method include low reproducibility and large interobserver variance, mainly as a result of individual differences in sampling of image fields for analysis. Our aim was to test an unbiased method for quantifying microvessels in healthy and tumorous lymph nodes of dogs. The endothelium of blood vessels was detected in paraffin sections by a combination of immunohistochemistry (von Willebrand factor) and lectin histochemistry (wheat germ agglutinin) in comparison with detection of basal laminae by laminin immunohistochemistry or silver impregnation. Systematic uniform random sampling of 50 image fields was performed during photo-documentation. An unbiased counting frame (area 113,600 microm(2)) was applied to each micrograph. The total area sampled from each node was 5.68 mm(2). Vessel profiles were counted according to stereological counting rules. Inter- and intraobserver variabilities were tested. The application of systematic uniform random sampling was compared with the counting of vessel profiles in hot spots. The unbiased estimate of the number of vessel profiles per unit area ranged from 100.5 +/- 44.0/mm(2) to 442.6 +/- 102.5/mm(2) in contrast to 264 +/- 72.2/mm(2) to 771.0 +/- 108.2/mm(2) in hot spots. The advantage of using systematic uniform random sampling is its reproducibility, with reasonable interobserver and low intraobserver variance. This method also allows for the possibility of using archival material, because staining quality is not limiting as it is for image analysis, and artifacts can easily be excluded. However, this method is comparatively time-consuming. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
650    _2
$a zvířata $7 D000818
650    _2
$a biometrie $x metody $7 D001699
650    _2
$a cévy $x anatomie a histologie $x patologie $7 D001808
650    _2
$a psi $7 D004285
650    _2
$a cévní endotel $7 D004730
650    _2
$a imunohistochemie $x metody $7 D007150
650    _2
$a lymfatické uzliny $x anatomie a histologie $x patologie $7 D008198
650    _2
$a nádory $x patologie $7 D009369
650    _2
$a patologie $x metody $7 D010336
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a barvení a značení $7 D013194
655    _2
$a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
700    1_
$a Egger, Gunter F
700    1_
$a Witter, Kirsti
700    1_
$a Wolfesberger, Birgitt
773    0_
$t Microscopy Research & Technique $w MED00003348 $g Roč. 71, č. 10 (2008), s. 760-772
910    __
$a ABA008 $b x $y 7
990    __
$a 20110412125248 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20121113120246 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 834330 $s 698822
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2008 $b 71 $c 10 $d 760-772 $m Microscopy research and technique $n Microsc Res Tech $x MED00003348
LZP    __
$a 2011-4B/ewme

Najít záznam