Dataset Information

Assessment of the Prognostic Staging System of American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Breast Cancer: Comparisons with the Conventional Anatomic Staging System.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual introduced a new prognostic staging system for breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the changes in staging distribution and predictive power of the new staging system. Methods:Of the 12,275 patients with breast cancer identified from the Severance Breast Cancer Registry who underwent surgery between 1978 and 2016, 12,125 patients met the inclusion criteria. Results:In both the 7th and 8th staging systems, stage I patients constituted the largest proportion (38.2% and 48.4%). Migration from the 7th to 8th edition of the AJCC manual resulted in a decrease in stage II population and an increase in stage I and III populations. A total of 1,293 (15.4%) patients were upstaged, and 1,201 (14.3%) were downstaged. Downstaged patients had better recurrence-free and overall survival (p < 0.001). Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy showed good prognosis as p stage 0, and yp stages I and III showed poorer outcomes than the same p stage (p < 0.001). Conclusions:Staging migrations are common in early breast cancer under the prognostic staging system. The prognostic staging system of the 8th edition of the AJCC manual discriminates survival outcomes better than the anatomical staging system of the 7th edition of the AJCC manual.

SUBMITTER: Kim EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7043951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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 ΔAIC 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: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:BackgroundThe 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) came into force since 2018. However, the prognostic precision of this staging system has not been properly assessed. This study aimed to evaluate the latest staging system and suggest modifications to improve its prognostic precision.MethodsData of patients with GBC was included from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015) and multicenter database (2010-2017). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were recorded including age, sex, race, grade, T category, N category, M category and stage. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot survival functions. The prediction power of the AJCC 8th edition and its modified version were evaluated using the concordance index (C-index).ResultsA total of 2779 GBC patients were included in the SEER database and 591 were collected from multicenter database. While no significant difference in survival of patients was observed between stages IVA and IVB using the 8th AJCC staging system (p > 0.05), the prognosis of stage IIIA showed a slightly better outcome than stage IIIB (p = 0.046) in the SEER database. In the multicenter database, there was no significant difference between stage IIIA and stage IIIB (p > 0.05). Similarly, no significant difference in the survival of patients between stages IIIA and IIIB was observed when M0 patients with at least 6 lymph nodes (LNs) were analyzed (p > 0.05) for both SEER and multicenter database. On the other hand, a modified staging system was able to stratify patients from stage IIIA, stage IIIB and stage IV (p < 0.001). For the SEER database, the C-indexes of 8th AJCC staging system and that of its modified version were 0.709 and 0.742, respectively. For the multicenter database, the C-index of 8th AJCC staging system and that of our modified version were 0.635 and 0.679, respectively.ConclusionsThe modified 8th staging system proposed in this study can improve the prognostic precision of the 8th AJCC staging system for GBC. We therefore suggest including these modifications in the next update of AJCC staging system for GBC.

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.

Dataset Information

Assessment of the Prognostic Staging System of American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Breast Cancer: Comparisons with the Conventional Anatomic Staging System.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets