The development of agents that target tumour vasculature is ultimately dependent on the availability of appropriate preclinical screening assays. Several quantitative angiogenesis assays exist, each with its own unique characteristics and disadvantages. In this review we discuss some of the commonly used assays, their methodological pitfalls and current use. The corneal micropocket and the CAM assay are well established. However, the matrix-implant assays have the potential advantage of replicating the hypoxic tumour microenvironment, thus making them suitable for the study of tumour angiogenesis. The ideal quantitative angiogenesis assay does not exist and the use of two complimentary quantitative assays, such as a matrix implant assay and a microcirculatory preparation like the CAM or corneal micropocket assay, provides the best compromise. Newer models like the hollow-fibre assay are being developed and older ones refined. Assay systems should reflect distinct disease processes. Thus it is appropriate to develop assays that study exclusively pro- or anti-angiogenic compounds or anti-vascular agents. Criticisms of currently available screening systems are that the predictive value of current screening systems remains to be established as anti-angiogenic agents are still in clinical development. Anti-angiogenic agents are likely to be most effective as chronic therapy for remission maintenance in the metastatic setting or as adjuvant therapy in patients at high risk of relapse, an important clinical aspect not addressed in animal models of tumour angiogenesis. Histological analysis still provides the most detailed information on in vivo angiogenesis. However, angiogenesis is a dynamic process and assays that permit continuous monitoring of the angiogenic response and provide information on the physiological characteristics of new vessels will be distinctly advantageous over older systems. The development of non-invasive techniques for quantitation of angiogenesis will greatly facilitate this process.