Assessment of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th Edition Staging for Localised Prostate Cancer in Asia Treated with External Beam Radiotherapy

被引:0
|
作者
Wong, Meihua [1 ]
Yip, Connie [2 ]
Li, Huihua [3 ]
Tan, Terence [2 ]
Kanesvaran, Ravindran [1 ]
Chowbay, Balram [4 ,5 ,6 ]
Tan, Puay Hoon [7 ]
Tan, Min-Han [1 ,8 ]
Wong, Fuh Yong [2 ]
机构
[1] Natl Canc Ctr Singapore, Dept Med Oncol, Singapore 169610, Singapore
[2] Natl Canc Ctr Singapore, Dept Radiat Oncol, Singapore 169610, Singapore
[3] Singapore Gen Hosp, Hlth Serv Res, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Natl Canc Ctr Singapore, Humphrey Oei Inst Canc Res, Div Med Sci, Lab Clin Pharmacol, Singapore 169610, Singapore
[5] Singhlth Clin Pharmacol Core, Singapore, Singapore
[6] Duke NUS Grad Med Sch, Singapore, Singapore
[7] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Pathol, Singapore, Singapore
[8] Inst Bioengn & Nanotechnol, Singapore, Singapore
关键词
D'amico; Intensity modulated radiotherapy; Prognosis; Risk stratification; CONSENSUS CONFERENCE; RADIATION-THERAPY; HORMONAL-THERAPY; SURVIVAL; SOCIETY; RESIDENTS; MORTALITY; SINGAPORE; PHOENIX;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Most international clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa) are driven by data derived in a Western setting. However, tumour biology and clinical disease progression are likely to differ in the Asian population. We compare the performance of the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) prognostic groups with the commonly used D'Amico Risk Classification and conventional predictors for PCa, in a large cohort of Asian patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data for 404 consecutive Singaporean patients receiving definitive radiotherapy at our centre between December 1996 and October 2006. The primary outcome was biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), defined using the Phoenix definition. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Prognostic risk groups were defined using AJCC 7th edition (AJCC7) and 6th edition (AJCC6). Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed for the following putative risk factors: age, Gleason score, prognostic grouping, tumour classification, radiation delivery technique, radiotherapy dose, hormonal therapy and initial PSA value. Results: For the cohort, median age was 69 years. Median follow-up was 66.3 months. Five-year BRFS rate was 84.3% with 71 biochemical relapses and 5-year OS rate was 89.1% with 54 deaths. The concordance-indices for BRFS prediction were 0.588, 0.550 and 0.567 for AJCC7, AJCC6 and D'Amico respectively. Initial PSA, T-stage and AJCC7 were prognostic for BRFS on UVA. Comparison of AJCC7 vs. D'Amico showed no statistical additional value of either classification system although D'Amico was superior when compared to AJCC6 in predicting BRFS. T-stage >= 3 and D'Amico were significant prognostic factors for BRFS on MVA. Conclusion: In our local, predominantly Chinese population, neither AJCC6 nor AJCC7 demonstrated a high predictive accuracy for BRFS although AJCC7 has a slightly better predictive ability than AJCC6.
引用
收藏
页码:484 / 491
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the Future of TNM
    Stephen B. Edge
    Carolyn C. Compton
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2010, 17 : 1471 - 1474
  • [2] The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the Future of TNM
    Edge, Stephen B.
    Compton, Carolyn C.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 17 (06) : 1471 - 1474
  • [3] Prognostic Value of the Staging System for Eyelid Tumors in the 7th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual
    Ford, Joshua
    Thakar, Sudip
    Thuro, Bradley
    Esmaeli, Bita
    OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 33 (05): : 317 - 324
  • [4] The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Breast Cancer Staging 8th Edition Is More Reflective of Cancer Biology Than the 7th Edition
    Young, Jessica
    Asaoka, Mariko
    Edge, Stephen
    Kazuaki, Takabe
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 27 (SUPPL 2) : S566 - S567
  • [5] Differences in 7th and 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging for periocular sebaceous carcinoma
    Reynolds, Roisin R.
    Davies, Michael J.
    Buffam, Frank, V
    Dolman, Peter J.
    White, Valerie A.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY-JOURNAL CANADIEN D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2021, 56 (01): : 31 - 36
  • [6] Validation of the 7th edition American Joint Committee on cancer staging system for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
    Tan, Zihui
    Chen, Yuan
    Ma, Guowei
    Meng, Yuqi
    Fu, Jianhua
    Zhang, Lanjun
    Long, Hao
    Rong, Tiehua
    Lin, Peng
    THORACIC CANCER, 2013, 4 (04) : 410 - 415
  • [7] The American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging system for the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is it better than the 7th edition?
    Shin, Dong Woo
    Kim, Jaihwan
    HEPATOBILIARY SURGERY AND NUTRITION, 2020, 9 (01) : 98 - 100
  • [8] Independent Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Prostate Cancer Staging Classification
    Bhindi, Bimal
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    Rangel, Laureano J.
    Mason, Ross J.
    Gettman, Matthew T.
    Frank, Igor
    Tollefson, Matthew K.
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Thompson, R. Houston
    Boorjian, Stephen A.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 198 (06): : 1287 - 1295
  • [9] Evaluation of clinical staging of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (eighth edition) for prostate cancer
    Xiao, Wen-jun
    Zhu, Yu
    Zhu, Yao
    Dai, Bo
    Ye, Ding-wei
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 36 (05) : 769 - 774
  • [10] Evaluation of the 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Staging System for Prostate Cancer in Point of Classification of Bladder Neck Invasion
    Chung, Mun Su
    Lee, Seung Hwan
    Lee, Dong Hoon
    Chung, Byung Ha
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 43 (02) : 184 - 188