Prognostic significance of the 8th edition of the TNM classification for patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer.
ABSTRACT: Background:Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is typically categorized according to disease extent as limited or extensive, and utility of the 8th TNM classification, recommended for lung cancer staging, which demonstrates a strong association with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) management, remains unclear. Methods:This retrospective study included 277 consecutive SCLC patients treated at a single institution between 2008 and 2016. Results:According to the currently used two-stage system, 186 (65.7%) of the patients were classified as having extensive disease (ED)-SCLC. Among the ED-SCLC patients, ten (5.3%), 38 (20.4%), 32 (17.2%), and 106 (57.0%) were categorized into stages M0, M1a, M1b, and M1c, respectively, according to the 8th TNM classification. There was a significant difference in overall survival based on the M descriptors: 15.8 (95% CI 9.4-22.2) months in the M1b group vs 7.3 (95% CI 5.7-8.9) months in the M1c group (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that in addition to the known prognostic factors such as performance status, serum albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase, M descriptor was a prognostic factor (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.38-2.77; P<0.001). Conclusion:The 8th TNM classification has a prognostic value in SCLC. Similarly to NSCLC, treatment approaches should be considered on the basis of the 8th TNM classification, especially stage IVA separate from stage IVB in ED-SCLC patients.
Project description:Background:A new revision of the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification for lung cancer has been proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), but external validation for it is required. This study aimed to evaluate stage groupings in the 8th edition of the TNM classification in an independent Chinese cohort. Methods:We retrospectively analyzed 3,611 patients who were diagnosed as stage I to IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and who received surgical treatment at our institute in China between October 2009 and August 2017. Long-rank tests were used to compare survival between two adjacent stage groups. Results:Based on the 8th edition of the TNM classification, differences between every 2 adjacent stage groups were found to be significant except between Ia1 and Ia2 (P=0.062), and between IIIc and IVa (P=0.063). Significant differences were found between every 2 adjacent categories stratified by the T and N descriptors. Additionally, significant differences were found between M0 and M1a (P<0.001), while no significant difference was observed between M1a and M1b (P=0.092). Conclusions:Our study provides an external validation of the stage groupings in the 8th edition of the TNM staging system in surgically treated Chinese patients with NSCLC.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification for colorectal cancer (CRC) has limited ability to predict prognosis.<h4>Methods</h4>We included 45 379 eligible stage I-III CRC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Patients were randomly assigned individually to a training (n<i>?</i>=<i>?</i>31 772) or an internal validation cohort (n<i>?</i>=<i>?</i>13 607). External validation was performed in 10 902 additional patients. Patients were divided according to T and N stage permutations. Survival analyses were conducted by a Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with T1N0 as the reference. Area under receiver operating characteristic curve and Akaike information criteria were applied for prognostic discrimination and model fitting, respectively. Clinical benefits were further assessed by decision curve analyses.<h4>Results</h4>We created a modified TNM (mTNM) classification: stages I (T1-2N0-1a); IIA (T1N1b, T2N1b, T3N0); IIB (T1-2N2a-2b, T3N1a-1b, T4aN0); IIC (T3N2a, T4aN1a-2a, T4bN0); IIIA (T3N2b, T4bN1a); IIIB (T4aN2b, T4bN1b); and IIIC (T4bN2a-2b). In the internal validation cohort, compared with the AJCC 8th TNM classification, the mTNM classification showed superior prognostic discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.675 vs 0.667, respectively; 2-sided <i>P?</i><<i>?</i>.001) and better model fitting (Akaike information criteria = 70 937 vs 71 238, respectively). Similar findings were obtained in the external validation cohort. Decision curve analyses revealed that the mTNM had superior net benefits over the AJCC 8th TNM classification in the internal and external validation cohorts.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The mTNM classification provides better prognostic discrimination than AJCC 8th TNM classification, with good applicability in various populations and settings, to help better stratify stage I-III CRC patients into prognostic groups.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) has a poor prognosis. Additional prognostic markers are needed for risk-stratification and treatment intensification. This study compares quantitative CT-based volumetric tumor measurements versus International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) TNM staging to predict outcomes. MATERIALS & METHODS:A cohort of 105 patients diagnosed with LS-SCLC and treated with chemoradiation (CRT) from 2000 to 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were staged by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM Classification, 8th edition. Tumor volumes and diameters were extracted from radiation planning CT imaging. Univariable and multivariable models were used to analyze relationships between CT features and overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), in-field LRR, any progression, and distant metastasis (DM). RESULTS:Median follow-up was 21.3?months. Two-year outcomes were as follows: 38% LRR, 31% in-field LRR, 52% DM, 62% any progression, and 47% OS (median survival 16.5?months). On univariable analysis, UICC T-stage and N-stage were not associated with any clinical outcome. UICC overall stage was only statistically associated with in-field LRR. One imaging feature (3D maximum tumor diameter) was found to be significantly associated with LRR (HR 1.10, p =?0.003), in-field LRR (HR 1.10, p =?0.007), DM (HR 1.10, p =?0.02), any progression (HR 1.10, p =?0.008), and OS (HR 1.10, p =?0.03). On multivariable analysis, this feature remained significantly associated with all outcomes. CONCLUSION:For LS-SCLC, quantitative CT-based volumetric tumor measurements were significantly associated with outcomes after CRT and may be better predictors of outcome than TNM stage.
Project description:The modification of the cancer classification system aimed to improve the classical anatomy-based tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging by considering tumor biology, which is associated with patient prognosis, because such information provides additional precision and flexibility.We previously developed an mRNA expression-based single patient classifier (SPC) algorithm that could predict the prognosis of patients with stage II/III gastric cancer. We also validated its utilization in clinical settings. The prognostic single patient classifier (pSPC) differentiates based on 3 prognostic groups (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk), and these groups were considered as independent prognostic factors along with TNM stages. We evaluated whether the modified TNM staging system based on the pSPC has a better prognostic performance than the TNM 8th edition staging system. The data of 652 patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric cancer between 2000 and 2004 were evaluated. Furthermore, 2 other cohorts (n=307 and 625) from a previous study were assessed. Thus, 1,584 patients were included in the analysis. To modify the TNM staging system, one-grade down-staging was applied to low-risk patients according to the pSPC in the TNM 8th edition staging system; for intermediate- and high-risk groups, the modified TNM and TNM 8th edition staging systems were identical.Among the 1,584 patients, 187 (11.8%), 664 (41.9%), and 733 (46.3%) were classified into the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively, according to the pSPC. pSPC prognoses and survival curves of the overall population were well stratified, and the TNM stage-adjusted hazard ratios of the intermediate- and high-risk groups were 1.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.72; P<0.001) and 2.54 (95% CI, 1.84-3.50; P<0.001), respectively. Using Harrell's C-index, the prognostic performance of the modified TNM system was evaluated, and the results showed that its prognostic performance was better than that of the TNM 8th edition staging system in terms of overall survival (0.635 vs. 0.620, P<0.001).The pSPC-modified TNM staging is an alternative staging system for stage II/III gastric cancer.
Project description:The eighth TNM edition for gastric cancer was released in 2016 and included major revisions, especially of stage III. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the new AJCC TNM classification in comparison with the 7th edition for stage III gastric cancer.Clinical and histopathological data on 1,496 patients operated on for stage III GC according to the seventh edition between 2005 and 2013 were analyzed and compared using 7th and 8th classifications. The 2 systems were compared in terms of prognostic performance.The stage shifted for 650 (43.45%) patients: from IIIA to IIIB (2 patient, 0.13%), from IIIB to IIIA (214 patients, 14.30%), from IIIB to IIIC (99 patients, 6.62%), and from IIIC to IIIB (335 patients, 22.39%). Cox regression multivariate analysis showed both the 8th and 7th TNM classification were independent prognostic factors. The 8th edition system had higher linear trend and likelihood ratio ?2 scores, and smaller AIC values compared with those for the 7th edition. However, the performance of the eighth edition did not reveal significant improvement compared to the seventh edition (c-index 0.625 vs. c-index 0.616, p=0.085).The eighth TNM edition may not provide significantly better accuracy in predicting the prognosis of stage III GC. However, to confirm our findings, further studies are warranted.
Project description:Background: With the growing interest in treatment de-intensification trials for human papillomavirus positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC), prognostic models have become essential for patient selection. The aim of this paper is to validate and compare the prognostic ability of the TNM 8th edition and previous published risk group classifications of Ang et al. and Rietbergen et al. and to derive a patient selection classification for de-intensification trials. Materials: Patients with HPV+ OPC treated with curative (chemo)radiotherapy between 2004 and 2017 were classified according to the TNM 8th edition, the model of Ang et al. and of Rietbergen et al. HPV status was determined by p16 immunohistochemistry staining. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups were compared using the log-rank test. Harrell's C-index was used as measure of discriminative performance. Results: A total of 333 OPC were identified of whom 100 were HPV+. The median follow-up was 63.7 months. The 5-year overall survival (5Y-OS) of stage I, II and III were 91.6, 55.2, and 38.0%. There was a significant difference between stage I vs. II and III. The Harrell's C-index for TNM 8th edition stage was 0.67. Including only HPV+ OPC, the Harrell's C-index for the model of Ang and Rietbergen were both 0.62. We combined the main prognostic factors defining the low risk groups in the three models, stage I, low comorbidity and ? 10 pack years, into one new low risk group to identify patients who may benefit from de-intensification trials. Intermediate risk was defined as stage I with high comorbidity or >10 pack years, high risk as stage II-III. The 5Y-OS were 100, 85.7, and 51.3%. The Harrell's C-index for the new classification model was 0.67. Conclusion: Although TNM 8th edition provides better OS stratification than the 7th edition, it is not performant enough for patient selection, neither are the models from Ang et al. and Rietbergen et al. Therefore, we propose a patient selection classification for de-intensification trials based on the new TNM classification 8th edition, comorbidity and smoking pack years. In addition, this study emphasizes the importance of patient selection and personalized treatment for HPV+OPC.
Project description:The 8th edition of the TNM was released in 2016 and included major revisions, especially for stage III. We aimed to compare the prognostic value of the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC TNM classification for stage III gastric cancer. Clinical data from 1557 patients operated on for stage III gastric cancer according to the 7th edition between 2007 and 2014 were analyzed and compared using the 7th and 8th TNM classifications. A proposed staging system was established, and the three systems were compared in terms of prognostic performance. The stage shifted for 669 (42.96%) patients. It shifted from IIIA to IIIB (one patient, 0.06%), IIIB to IIIA (230 patients, 14.8%), IIIB to IIIC (94 patients, 6.0%), and IIIC to IIIB (344 patients, 22.1%). However, the new AJCC subgroupings did not prove distinctive for survival levels between T3N3aM0 (stage IIIB) and T3N3bM0 (stage IIIC) or between T4aN3aM0 (stage IIIB) and T4aN3bM0 (stage IIIC) when <30 lymph nodes (LNs) were resected. The performance of the 8th edition (c-index, 0.614; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.596-0.633) revealed no relevant improvement compared to the 7th edition (c-index, 0.624; 95% CI, 0.605-0.643). The proposed staging system generated the best prognostic stratification. The 8th TNM edition may not provide better accuracy in predicting the prognosis of stage III gastric cancer. The proposed staging system, comprised of a combination of the number of LNs harvested and the 7th and 8th AJCC classifications, may improve predictive capacities for stage III gastric cancer.
Project description:This study compared the prognostic significance of staging between the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition Tumor, Node, Metastasis (TNM) staging system and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The study population comprised patients with liver cancer registered in the Taiwan Cancer Database from 2007 to 2013 and was followed up until December 31, 2016. The study included patients with HCC, with known staging in both TNM and BCLC systems, and with follow-up >1 month. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model were constructed to investigate the significance of staging by two systems. Goodness-of-fit of model was evaluated via Akaike's information criterion (AIC), the lower the better. Among 73,136 patients with newly diagnosed liver cancer, a total of 37,062 patients with HCC (25.6% underwent surgery) were eligible. The mean age and overall survival of this cohort were 63.9?years and 27.2%, respectively. Overall survivals for stages I, II, III, and IV (the TNM system) were 54.5%, 34.9%, 10.3%, and 6.4%, respectively. Overall survivals for stages A, B, C, and D (the BCLC classification) were 54.5%, 29.2%, 9.8%, and 4.0%, respectively. The median follow-up time was 59.4 months. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards model revealed that both systems predicted overall survival, cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence-free rate well. Values of ?AIC of the BCLC classification and the TNM system were lower for the surgery group and nonsurgery group, respectively. The TNM system (8th edition) predicted long-term outcome better than the BCLC classification in patients with HCC. But in patients treated initially with surgery, the BCLC classification outperformed the 8th edition of the TNM system. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This work demonstrates that the Tumor, Node, Metastasis (TNM) system (8th edition) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification both predict long-term outcome significantly in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma but that the TNM system (8th edition) predicts long-term outcome better than the BCLC classification. For patients treated initially with surgery, BCLC classification outperforms in 8th edition TNM system in predicting long-term outcome.
Project description:Because the need of clinical prognostic evaluation by specific metastatic organ, we aim to analyze the prognostic factors in lung cancer patients with M1b disease with Surveillance Epidemiology and End-Results database (SEER). This retrospective study evaluated lung cancer patients of adenocarcinoma (AD), squamous cell carcinoma (SQCC), and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) selected from SEER. We provided the prognostic correlates of overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) in this population. 23,679 eligible patients were included. Bone was the most common metastatic site in AD (63.1%) and SQCC (61.1%), while liver was the most prevalent site (61.9%) in SCLC. Single site metastasis was significantly associated with better outcome compared to multiple sites metastases in all patients. Among patients with single site metastasis, OS and LCSS were longer for AD and SCLC if involving brain or bone, with median survival time of 5 to 7 months, comparing to 3 months if invloving liver (all p-values < 0.001). Similarly, among patients with multiple metastases, better outcomes were observed in AD patients (4 vs 3 months; OS and LCSS, p < 0.001) and SCLC patients (6 vs 4 months; OS, p = 0.017; LCSS, p = 0.023) without liver metastasis compared to those with liver metastasis. In conclusion, we estimated multiple survival outcomes by histology of primary tumor and sites of metastasis. Liver metastasis is found to be the worst prognostic factor for AD and SCLC patients with distant metastasis. More in-depth research is warranted to identify patients who are prone to develop distance metastasis, especially to liver.
Project description:AIMS:In the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging manual, tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension are added to the pathological classification for oral squamous cell carcinoma. The currently available 8th TNM validation studies lack patients with conservative neck treatment, and changes in the classification especially affect patients with small tumours. The aim of this study was to determine the potential impact of the changes in the 8th edition pTNM classification on the prognosis and treatment strategy for oral squamous cell carcinoma in a well-defined series of pT1-T2 patients with long-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS:Two hundred and eleven first primary pT1-T2 oral squamous cell carcinoma patients, with surgical resection as primary treatment, were analysed retrospectively. One hundred and seventy-three patients underwent a neck dissection, and 38 patients had frequent clinical neck assessments. Long-term follow-up (median 64 months) and reassessed tumour infiltration depth were available. Classification according to the 8th edition criteria resulted in 36% total upstaging with the T classification and 16% total upstaging with the N classification. T3-restaged patients (n = 30, 14%) had lower 5-year disease-specific survival rates than T2-staged patients (81% versus 67%, P = 0.042). Postoperative (chemo)radiotherapy could have been considered in another seven (3%) patients on the basis of the 8th edition criteria. CONCLUSIONS:Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension in the 8th TNM classification leads to the identification of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients with a worse prognosis who might benefit from an improved postoperative treatment strategy.