Dataset Information

Rethinking the Current American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Staging System for Medullary Thyroid Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Controversy exists around the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system for medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Because of the rarity of the disease and limited available data, the staging system for MTC has been largely extrapolated from staging for differentiated thyroid cancer.

Objectives

To evaluate how well the current (seventh and eighth editions) AJCC TNM staging system correlates with survival for patients with MTC and to suggest a possible revision.

Design, setting, and participants

This population-based retrospective cohort analysis used the National Cancer Database to select patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with MTC in the United States between 1998 and 2012. Patient demographic and tumor characteristics were assessed, and pathologic tumor stages were provided as T, N, and M categories. Recursive partitioning with bootstrapping was used to divide patients by TNM stages into groups with similar survival. The newly identified groupings were validated in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort. Data analysis was conducted between July 17, 2016, and November 11, 2016.

Main outcomes and measures

Overall survival and disease-specific survival.

Results

Of the 3315 patients with MTC included in the analysis, 1941 (58.6%) were women. The median (interquartile range) age was 54 (42-65) years, and 2839 (85.6%) self-reported their race/ethnicity as white. The current AJCC TNM staging system classified 941 of these patients (28.4%) as stage I, 907 (27.4%) as stage II, 424 (12.9%) as stage III, and 1043 (31.5%) as stage IV. Recursive partitioning analysis yielded 4 TNM groups: stage I (T1N0-1aM0, T2N0M0), stage II (T1N1bM0, T2N1a-bM0, and T3N0M0), stage III (T3N1a-bM0, T4N0-1bM0), and stage IV (T1-4N0-1bM1). Based on these proposed TNM groupings, 1797 of the 3315 patients (54.2%) were classified as stage I, 684 (20.6%) as stage II, 669 (20.2%) as stage III, and 165 (5.0%) as stage IV. Under the proposed TNM groupings, survival differences across TNM groups were more distinct than under the current AJCC TNM staging system. With stage I as the reference, the hazard ratios of the proposed TNM groupings and the current AJCC TNM staging system were 2.19 (95% CI, 1.37-3.12) vs 1.45 (95% CI, 1.09-1.92) for stage II, 4.20 (95% CI, 2.75-5.75) vs 2.17 (95% CI, 1.59-2.89) for stage III, and 10.97 (95% CI, 5.52-18.57) vs 5.33 (95% CI, 4.13-6.86) for stage IV. In a SEER cohort, the proposed TNM groupings were better at discriminating survival than was the current AJCC TNM staging system.

Conclusions and relevance

The current AJCC TNM staging system for MTC appears to be less than optimal in distinguishing risk of mortality among stage groups, upstaging a significant number of patients to stage IV. The current AJCC TNM staging system could be improved with the new TNM groupings proposed here for more accurate risk stratification and potential treatment selection.

SUBMITTER: Adam MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710458 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe recently released eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for pancreatic cancer seeks to improve prognostic accuracy but lacks international validation.ObjectiveTo validate the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system in an international cohort of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis international multicenter cohort study took place in 5 tertiary centers in Europe and the United States from 2000 to 2015. Patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for nonmetastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were eligible. Data analysis took place from December 2017 to April 2018.ExposuresPatients were retrospectively staged according to the seventh and eighth editions of the TNM staging system.Main outcomes and measuresPrognostic accuracy on survival rates, assessed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses and concordance statistics.ResultsA total of 1525 consecutive patients were included (median [IQR] age, 66 (58-72) years; 802 (52.6%) male). Distribution among stages via the seventh edition was stage IA in 41 patients (2.7%), stage IB in 42 (2.8%), stage IIA in 200 (13.1%), stage IIB in 1229 (80.6%), and stage III in 12 (0.8%); this changed with use of the eighth edition to stage IA in 118 patients (7.7%), stage IB in 144 (9.4%), stage IIA in 22 (1.4%), stage IIB in 643 (42.2%), and stage III in 598 (39.2%). With the eighth edition, 774 patients (50.8%) migrated to a different stage; 183 (12.0%) were reclassified to a lower stage and 591 (38.8%) to a higher stage. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 24.4 months (95% CI, 23.4-26.2 months). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 5-year survival rates changed from 38.2% for patients in stage IA, 34.7% in IB, 35.3% in IIA, 16.5% in IIB, and 0% in stage III (log-rank P < .001) via classification with the seventh edition to 39.2% for patients in stage IA, 33.9% in IB, 27.6% in IIA, 21.0% in IIB, and 10.8% in stage III (log-rank P < .001) with the eighth edition. For patients who were node negative, the T stage was not associated with prognostication of survival in either edition. In the eighth edition, the N stage was associated with 5-year survival rates of 35.6% in N0, 20.8% in N1, and 10.9% in N2 (log-rank P < .001). The C statistic improved from 0.55 (95% CI, 0.53-0.57) for the seventh edition to 0.57 (95% CI, 0.55-0.60) for the eighth edition.Conclusions and relevanceThe eighth edition of the TNM staging system demonstrated a more equal distribution among stages and a modestly increased prognostic accuracy in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with the seventh edition. The revised T stage remains poorly associated with survival, whereas the revised N stage is highly prognostic.

Project description:Answer questions and earn CME/CNE To update the melanoma staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) a large database was assembled comprising >46,000 patients from 10 centers worldwide with stages I, II, and III melanoma diagnosed since 1998. Based on analyses of this new database, the existing seventh edition AJCC stage IV database, and contemporary clinical trial data, the AJCC Melanoma Expert Panel introduced several important changes to the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification and stage grouping criteria. Key changes in the eighth edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual include: 1) tumor thickness measurements to be recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm, not 0.01 mm; 2) definitions of T1a and T1b are revised (T1a, <0.8 mm without ulceration; T1b, 0.8-1.0 mm with or without ulceration or <0.8 mm with ulceration), with mitotic rate no longer a T category criterion; 3) pathological (but not clinical) stage IA is revised to include T1b N0 M0 (formerly pathologic stage IB); 4) the N category descriptors "microscopic" and "macroscopic" for regional node metastasis are redefined as "clinically occult" and "clinically apparent"; 5) prognostic stage III groupings are based on N category criteria and T category criteria (ie, primary tumor thickness and ulceration) and increased from 3 to 4 subgroups (stages IIIA-IIID); 6) definitions of N subcategories are revised, with the presence of microsatellites, satellites, or in-transit metastases now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based on the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, if any; 7) descriptors are added to each M1 subcategory designation for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (LDH elevation no longer upstages to M1c); and 8) a new M1d designation is added for central nervous system metastases. This evidence-based revision of the AJCC melanoma staging system will guide patient treatment, provide better prognostic estimates, and refine stratification of patients entering clinical trials. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:472-492. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) breast cancer staging system provides important prognostic information. The recently published eighth edition incorporates biological markers and recommends the use of a complex "prognostic stage." In this study, we assessed the relationship between stage, breast cancer subtype, grade, and outcome in a large population-based cohort and evaluated a risk score system incorporating tumor characteristic to the AJCC anatomic staging system. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer stage I-IV between 2005-2008 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. For patients with stage I-III disease, pathologic stage was recorded. For patients with stage IV disease, clinical stage was utilized. Five-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were determined for each potential tumor size-node involvement-metastases (TNM) combination according to breast cancer subtype. A risk score point-based system using grade, estrogen receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status was designed to complement the anatomic AJCC staging system. Survival probabilities between groups were compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used. RESULTS:Among 43,938 patients, we observed differences in 5-year BCSS and OS for each TNM combination according to breast cancer subtype. The most favorable outcomes were seen for hormone receptor-positive tumors followed closely by HER2-positive tumors, with the worst outcomes observed for triple negative breast cancer. Our risk score system separated patients into four risk groups within each stage category (all p?<?.05). CONCLUSION:Our simple risk score system incorporates biological factors into the AJCC anatomic staging system, providing accurate prognostic information. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This study demonstrates that stage, but also breast cancer subtype and grade, define prognosis in a large population of breast cancer patients. It shows that a point-based risk score system that incorporates these biological factors provides refined stratification and information on prognosis, improving the anatomic American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. In addition, the overall mortality and breast cancer specific mortality rates detailed here provide much-needed information about prognosis in the current era, refining the current AJCC staging.

Project description:BackgroundThe American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) maintains that the eighth edition of its Staging Manual (AJCC8) has improved accuracy compared with the seventh (AJCC7). However, there are concerns that implementation may disrupt analysis of active clinical trials for stage III patients. We used an independent cohort of melanoma patients to test the extent to which AJCC8 has improved prognostic accuracy compared with AJCC7.MethodsWe analyzed a cohort of 1315 prospectively enrolled patients. We assessed primary tumor and nodal classification of stage I-III patients using AJCC7 and AJCC8 to assign disease stages at diagnosis. We compared recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. We then compared concordance indices of discriminatory prognostic ability and area under the curve of 5-year survival to predict RFS and OS. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsStage IIC patients continued to have worse outcomes than stage IIIA patients, with a 5-year RFS of 26.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.8% to 55.1%) vs 56.0% (95% CI = 37.0% to 84.7%) by AJCC8 (P = .002). For stage I, removing mitotic index as a T classification factor decreased its prognostic value, although not statistically significantly (RFS concordance index [C-index] = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.69; to 0.56, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.63, P = .07; OS C-index = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.58; to 0.48, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.56, P = .90). For stage II, prognostication remained constant (RFS C-index = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.72; OS C-index = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.50 to 0.72), and for stage III, AJCC8 yielded statistically significantly enhanced prognostication for RFS (C-index = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.70; to 0.70, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.75, P = .01).ConclusionsCompared with AJCC7, we demonstrate that AJCC8 enables more accurate prognosis for patients with stage III melanoma. Restaging a large cohort of patients can enhance the analysis of active clinical trials.

Project description:Importance: The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual incorporated new changes from its 7th edition for classifying retinoblastoma (RB). Objective: We assessed the comparative prognostic values of the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC clinical (cTNM) staging manuals for RB and suggested modifications for future edition accordingly. Design: A retrospective, observational study. Setting: King Hussein Cancer Centre. Participants: A cohort of 478 patients and 565 eyes with RB. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcome measures included demographics; tumor features, AJCC cTNM stage, and eye salvage rates. The prognostic performance of the different staging systems was assessed with the concordance index (C-index) and likelihood ratio χ2 tests. Results: The overall eye salvage rate was 65%. Stage migration occurred for 330 (48%) eyes with the AJCC Staging Manual, 8th edition. Based on the 7th edition AJCC staging, the eye salvage rate was 94% (n=177) for T1 tumors (98% for T1a, 93%for T1b, and 90%for T1c), 69% (n=204) for T2 tumors (73% for T2a and 62%for T2b), and 51% (n=40) for T3 tumors. Based on the 8th edition AJCC staging, the eye salvage rate was 95% (n=139) for T1 tumors (98% for T1a and 93% for T1b), 68% (n=281) for T2 tumors (90%for T2a and 66%for T2b), and 12% (n=1) for T3 tumors. With our proposed cTNM modifications, the eye salvage rate was 94% (n=177) for T1 tumors (98%for T1a, 93%for T1b, and 90% for T1c), 66% (n=243) for T2 tumors (73% for T2a, 62% for T2b, and 55% for T2c), and 12% (n=1) for T3 tumors. As estimated by odds ratios, more advanced cTNM stage (regardless of the cTNM staging system) was significantly associated with an increased chance of treatment failure (P < .0001). The C-index for both the 8th edition and the proposed modifications were approximately equal, and both were higher than that of the 7th edition. However, the proposed modifications had the highest likelihood ratio χ2 value and the best bootstrap 95% confidence interval. Conclusions and Relevance: Our proposed modifications on the clinical TNM Staging System for RB harbor more detailed subgroup classification criteria that provides better prognostic value for eye globe salvage than the published similar (but not identical) AJCC Staging Manual, 7th and 8th editions, furthermore these modifications may resolve the discrepancies in the previously published different classification systems for RB.