The effect of the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition on breast cancer staging and prognostication

被引:11
|
作者
Savage, Paul [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Yu, Nancy [3 ]
Dumitra, Sinziana [3 ,4 ]
Meterissian, Sarkis [3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Rosalind & Morris Goodman Canc Res Ctr, Montreal, PQ H3G 0B1, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, Div Expt Med, Montreal, PQ H4A 3J1, Canada
[3] McGill Univ, Fac Med, Montreal, PQ H4A 3T2, Canada
[4] McGill Univ, Dept Surg, Montreal, PQ H3G 1A4, Canada
[5] McGill Univ, Dept Oncol, Montreal, PQ H4A 3T2, Canada
来源
EJSO | 2019年 / 45卷 / 10期
关键词
Breast cancer; AJCC eighth edition; Stage; Prognostic staging; Anatomical staging; Prognosis; SYSTEM; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejso.2019.03.027
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Breast cancer staging has been developed to quantify prognosis and guide treatment. The American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition manual (AJCC8) departed from traditional anatomic staging by incorporating biological factors such as grade, hormone and HER2 receptor status into a novel prognostic staging model. The aim of this study was to externally validate AJCC8 prognostic staging. Methods: This retrospective cohort investigated patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 at the McGill University Health Center. Patients were classified using both anatomic and prognostic staging systems according AJCC8. Overall survival analysis using a multivariate Cox-proportional hazard model was performed and model accuracy was evaluated using the Harrell concordance index (C-index) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Results: The cohort included 1703 women. Anatomic and prognostic stage assignments displayed discrepancies for 46.2% of patients, where 38.8% were downstaged and 7.5% were upstaged with prognostic staging. Patients with anatomic stages IB, HA, IIB, IIIA and IIIC had high rates of downstaging (64.6-96.5%), as opposed to anatomic stages IA and IIIB where 93.1% and 75.0% of patients stage remained unchanged, respectively. The prognostic stage displayed increased prognostic accuracy with respect to overall survival, where the C-index was significantly higher compared to anatomic staging (0.810 vs 0.799, p < 0.05). In addition, prognostic staging displayed an improved model fit with a lower AIC (983.9) compared to anatomic staging (995.2). Conclusion: Prognostic and anatomic staging differ in their classification of patients, where prognostic staging displays improved accuracy, supporting its use in informing patient prognosis and guiding treatment decisions. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO - The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1817 / 1820
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Analysis of the seventh edition of American Joint Committee on colon cancer staging
    Yuan-Tzu Lan
    Shung-Haur Yang
    Shih-Ching Chang
    Wen-Yih Liang
    Anna Fen-Yau Li
    Huann-Sheng Wang
    Jeng-Kai Jiang
    Wei-Shone Chen
    Tzu-Chen Lin
    Jen-Kou Lin
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2012, 27 : 657 - 663
  • [42] American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging-an improvement in prognostication in HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer?
    Mallen-St Clair, Jon
    Ho, Allen S.
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2019, 7
  • [43] Accurate Assessment of Histologic Parameters That Impact Lung Cancer Staging: Implications for the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition TNM Classification
    Butnor, Kelly J.
    AJSP-REVIEWS AND REPORTS, 2018, 23 (03): : 134 - 137
  • [44] Evaluation of the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Staging System for Gastric Cancer: An Analysis of 7371 Patients in the SEER Database
    Cao, Long-Long
    Lu, Jun
    Li, Ping
    Xie, Jian-Wei
    Wang, Jia-Bin
    Lin, Jian-Xian
    Chen, Qi-Yue
    Lin, Mi
    Tu, Ru-Hong
    Zheng, Chao-Hui
    Huang, Chang-Ming
    GASTROENTEROLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2019, 2019
  • [45] Eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for soft tissue sarcoma of the trunk and extremity: in search of a better staging system
    Tanaka, Kazuhiro
    Tsumura, Hiroshi
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2019, 7
  • [46] Challenges of the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for pathologists focusing on early stage lung adenocarcinoma
    Wang, Yu-Ting
    Chang, Il-Chi
    Chen, Chih-Yi
    Hsia, Jiun-Yi
    Lin, Frank Cheau-Feng
    Chao, Wan-Ru
    Ke, Tuan-Ying
    Chen, Ya-Ting
    Chen, Chih-Jung
    Hsieh, Min-Shu
    Huang, Shiu-Feng
    THORACIC CANCER, 2023, 14 (06) : 592 - 601
  • [48] American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition human papilloma virus positive oropharyngeal cancer staging system: Discordance between clinical and pathological staging systems
    Hall, Scott R.
    Neel, Gregory S.
    Chang, Brent A.
    Howard, Brittany E.
    Nagel, Thomas H.
    Lott, David G.
    Hayden, Richard E.
    Zhang, Nan
    Hinni, Michael L.
    HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2019, 41 (08): : 2716 - 2723
  • [49] Validation of American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth staging system for gallbladder cancer and its lymphadenectomy guidelines
    Lee, Andrew J.
    Chiang, Yi-Ju
    Lee, Jeffrey E.
    Conrad, Claudius
    Chun, Yun-Shin
    Aloia, Thomas A.
    Vauthey, Jean-Nicolas
    Tzeng, Ching-Wei D.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 230 : 148 - 154
  • [50] THE 2017 AMERICAN JOINT COMMITTEE ON CANCER EIGHTH EDITION CANCER STAGING MANUAL: CHANGES IN STAGING GUIDELINES FOR CANCERS OF THE KIDNEY, RENAL PELVIS AND URETER, BLADDER, AND URETHRA
    Robins, Dennis J.
    Small, Alexander C.
    Amin, Mahul B.
    Bochner, Bernard H.
    Chang, Sam S.
    Choueiri, Toni K.
    Efstathiou, Jason A.
    Gospodarowicz, Mary
    Hansel, Donna E.
    Kenney, Patrick A.
    Konety, Badrinath R.
    Landman, Jaime
    Lee, Cheryl T.
    Leibovich, Bradley C.
    Plimack, Elizabeth R.
    Reuter, Victor E.
    Rini, Brian I.
    Sridhar, Srikala
    Stadler, Walter M.
    Tickoo, Satish K.
    Vikram, Raghunandan
    Zhou, Ming
    McKiernan, James M.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (04): : E1163 - E1163