Is the New Seventh AJCC/UICC Staging System Appropriate for Patients with Gastric Cancer?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical usefulness of the seventh Union Internationale Contre le Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC/UICC) staging system vs the sixth AJCC/UICC staging system in patients with gastric cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Included were 1,799 patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer between January 2001 and June 2005 at the National Cancer Center (South Korea). For the sixth and seventh AJCC/UICC staging systems, survival outcomes stratified by stage, by T classification, and by N classification were summarized using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared statistically using a log rank test; survival differences were quantified using hazard ratios estimated from a Cox regression model. The 2 systems were compared in terms of prognostic performances using the linear trend chi-square test, likelihood ratio chi-square test, and Akaike information criterion (AIC) in the Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Significant survival differences between each stage were not found using the seventh staging system, especially for stages IB, IIA, and IIB (p = 0.14 and p = 0.11). The sixth staging system had higher linear trend chi-square score and likelihood ratio chi-square score, which means better discriminatory ability, monotonicity, and homogeneity, and had smaller AIC, which indicates better optimistic prognostic stratification, especially in the N classification. The modified staging system combining the T classification of the seventh AJCC/UICC system and the N classification of the sixth system showed better prognostic performance compared with each separate version (sixth or seventh) of the staging system. CONCLUSIONS: The seventh AJCC/UICC staging system is not more clinically useful than the sixth system in surgically treated patients with gastric cancer because of an inappropriate N classification. A new TNM system is required with a different N classification. (J Am Coll Surg 2012;214:88-96. (C) 2012 by the American College of Surgeons)