Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension improves the prognostic value of the pathological TNM classification for early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma.
ABSTRACT: 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.
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: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 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:The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system was released with major revisions. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate differences between the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system and to compare the predictability of prognosis between the two staging systems with patients who underwent thyroidectomy for differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) at a single institution. Methods:A total of 3238 patients underwent thyroid operation from January 2002 to December 2006 at Yonsei University Hospital (Seoul, Korea), of which 2294 with complete clinical data and sustained follow up were enrolled. Clinicopathologic features and TNM staging by applying the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC/UICC were analyzed retrospectively by the complete review of medical charts and pathology reports of patients. Mean follow-up duration was 132.9?±?27.9?months. Results:A significant number of T3 patients were downstaged to T1 (838, 36.5%) and T2 (122, 5.3%). After applying the 8th edition of the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system, the number of stage?I patients increased significantly from 1434 (62.5%) to 2058 (89.7%), whereas numbers of stage III and IV patients decreased significantly from 644 (28.1%) to 33 (1.4%) and from 199 (8.7%) to 17 (0.7%), respectively. According to Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and values of the Harrell's c-index and integrated area under the curve (iAUC), the 8th edition has significantly better predictive performance for disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) than the 7th edition. Conclusions:A significant population was downstaged after applying the 8th edition of the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system, and the 8th edition provided significantly better accuracy in predicting DFS and DSS in patients with DTC.
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: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:Objective:To investigate the validity of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system for gastric cancer. Methods:The clinicopathologic data of 7371 patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer and had 16 or more involved lymph nodes (LNs) were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and retrospectively reviewed. Results:Stage migration occurred primarily during stage III between the 7th and 8th edition TNM staging systems. Stages IIIB and IIIC in the 7th edition staging system were divided in the 8th edition and had obvious differences in survival rates (both P < 0.001). The 8th edition TNM stages IIIC and IV showed similar survival rates (P = 0.101). The prognosis of patients with T4aN3bM0 was not different from that of patients with TxNxM1 (P = 0.433), while the prognosis of patients with T4bN3bM0 was significantly poorer than that of patients with TxNxM1 (P = 0.008). A revised TNM system with both T4aN3bM0 and T4bN3bM0 incorporated into stage IV was proposed. Multivariable regression analysis showed that the revised TNM system, but not the 7th and 8th editions, was an independent factor for disease-specific survival (DSS) in the third step of the analysis. Further analyses revealed that the revised TNM system had superior discriminatory ability to the 8th edition staging system, which was also an improvement over the 7th edition staging system. Conclusion:The 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system is superior to the 7th edition for predicting the DSS rates of gastric cancer patients. However, for better prognostic stratification, it might be more suitable for T4aN3bM0/T4bN3bM0 to be incorporated into stage IV in the 8th edition TNM staging system.
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:BackgroundThe subcategory “solid component of tumor” is a new criterion of tumor categories in the updated eighth edition of the TNM classification. Nevertheless, the predictors of lymph node metastasis among patients with clinical T1 adenocarcinoma, based on the TNM classification 8th edition, remain unclear. This study aimed to identify the preoperative predictors of lymph node metastasis in clinical T1 adenocarcinoma by comparing clinicopathological characteristics between the groups with and without lymph node metastasis.MethodsWe performed a retrospective observational single-center study at the Sendai Kousei Hospital. From January 2012 to September 2019, we included 515 patients who underwent curative lobectomy or segmentectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection among those with clinical T1 adenocarcinoma according to the UICC-TNM staging 8th edition. They were divided into two groups: those with lymph node metastasis (positive group) and those without (negative group). The clinicopathological factors were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the groups.ResultsIn univariate analysis, carcinoembryonic antigen (>5.0 ng/mL) (P=0.0007), maximum standardized uptake (>3.5) (P<0.0001), clinical T factor (T1c) (P<0.0001), and consolidation tumor ratio (>0.85) (P<0.0001) were significant predictors of lymph node metastasis. Multivariate analysis revealed that maximum standardized uptake SUVmax (>3.5) (odds ratio =10.4, P<0.0001) was independently associated with lymph node metastasis. In univariate analysis, carcinoembryonic antigen (>5.0) (P=0.048) was the only predictor of lymph node metastasis among patients of cT1b, while no parameters were identified as significant predictors among patients of cT1c.ConclusionsSUVmax and CEA are useful preoperative predictors of lymph node metastases in patients with clinical T1 adenocarcinoma, stratified to T1b and T1c, based on the 8th TNM classification.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) classification showed superiority over 8th edition N staging in predicting survival of small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) patients. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Tumor, LODDS, and Metastasis (TLM) staging of SBA. METHODS:Totally 1789 SBA patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 1988-2010, 437 patients from SEER database between 2011-2013 and 166 patients from multicenters were categorized into development, validation and test cohort, respectively. The TLM staging was developed in the development cohort using Ensemble Algorithm for Clustering Cancer Data (EACCD) method. C-index was used to assess the performance of the TLM staging in predicting cancer-specific survival (CSS) and was compared with the traditional 8th edition TNM staging. FINDINGS:Four-category TLM staging designed for the development cohort showed higher discriminatory power than TNM staging in predicting CSS in the development cohort (0.682 vs. 0.650, P < 0.001), validation cohort (0.682 vs. 0.654, P = 0.022), and test cohort (0.659 vs. 0.611, P = 0.023), respectively. TLM staging continued to show its higher predictive efficacy than the 8th TNM in TNM stage II/III patients or in patients with lymph node yield less than 8. INTERPRETATION:TLM staging showed a better prognostic performance than the 8th TNM staging especially TNM stage II/III or patients with lymph node yield less than 8 and therefore, could serve to complement the TNM staging in patients with SBA. FUNDING:A full list of funding bodies that contributed to this study can be found in the Acknowledgements section.