Dataset Information

Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: The seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer differentiates patients with T1 tumors and lymph node micrometastases (stage IB) from patients with T1 tumors and negative nodes (stage IA). This study was undertaken to determine the utility of the stage IB designation.The following two cohorts of patients with breast cancer were identified: 3,474 patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1993 to 2007 and 4,590 patients from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0010 trial. Clinicopathologic and outcomes data were recorded, and disease was staged according to the seventh edition AJCC staging system. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.Median follow-up times were 6.1 years and 9.0 years for the MD Anderson Cancer Center and ACOSOG cohorts, respectively. In both cohorts, there were no significant differences between patients with stage IA and stage IB disease in 5- or 10-year RFS, DSS, or OS. Estrogen receptor (ER) status and grade significantly stratified patients with stage I disease with respect to RFS, DSS, and OS.Among patients with T1 breast cancer, individuals with micrometastases and those with negative nodes have similar survival outcomes. ER status and grade are better discriminants of survival than the presence of small-volume nodal metastases. In preparing the next edition of the AJCC staging system, consideration should be given to eliminating the stage IB designation and incorporating biologic factors.

SUBMITTER: Mittendorf EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4372850 | biostudies-other | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer.

Mittendorf Elizabeth A EA Ballman Karla V KV McCall Linda M LM Yi Min M Sahin Aysegul A AA Bedrosian Isabelle I Hansen Nora N Gabram Sheryl S Hurd Thelma T Giuliano Armando E AE Hunt Kelly K KK

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20141208 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>The seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer differentiates patients with T1 tumors and lymph node micrometastases (stage IB) from patients with T1 tumors and negative nodes (stage IA). This study was undertaken to determine the utility of the stage IB designation.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>The following two cohorts of patients with breast cancer were identified: 3,474 patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anders ...[more]

PMID: 25488970

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceControversy 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.ObjectivesTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresOverall survival and disease-specific survival.ResultsOf 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 relevanceThe 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.

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

Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer.

Publications

Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets