You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
The different role of intratumoral and peritumoral lymphangiogenesis in gastric cancer progression and prognosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-015-1501-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kyung Ho Pak, Ara Jo, Hye Ji Choi, Younghee Choi, Hyunki Kim, Jae-Ho Cheong |
| Abstract |
Tumor-induced lymphangiogenesis plays a crucial role in metastasis and tumor progression. However, the significance of intratumoral lymphovascular density (I-LVD) and peritumoral lymphovascular density (P-LVD) has been controversial in gastric cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of clinicopathologic characteristics with respect to I-LVD and P-LVD in gastric cancer. Samples of I-LVD and P-LVD from 66 patients who had undergone radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer were assessed after staining with D2-40, an immunostaining marker for lymphatic endothelium. The mean number of lymphatic vessels in three hotspots was calculated in intratumoral and peritumoral areas. The peritumoral lymphatics were enlarged with dilated lumens compared to the intratumoral lymphatics. I-LVD was positively correlated with diffuse gastric cancer subtype, tumor stage, lymphovascular invasion, tumor node metastasis stage, and overall survival (P <0.05). P-LVD was associated with lymphovascular invasion, node stage, and disease-free survival (P <0.05). We conclude that P-LVD had an important role in lymph node metastasis, while I-LVD was more associated with depth of tumor invasion. However, both LVDs contributed to gastric cancer progression and prognosis. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |