The AJCC 8th Edition Staging System for Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremities or Trunk: A Cohort Study of the SEER Database

被引:106
作者
Cates, Justin M. M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Pathol Microbiol & Immunol, Nashville, TN USA
来源
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK | 2018年 / 16卷 / 02期
关键词
LYMPH-NODE METASTASIS; PROGNOSTIC-FACTORS; FRACTIONAL POLYNOMIALS; REGRESSION-MODELS; INFORMATION CRITERION; EXTERNAL VALIDATION; CANCER; PREDICTORS; SURVIVAL; RESECTION;
D O I
10.6004/jnccn.2017.7042
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: The AJCC recently published the 8th edition of its cancer staging system. Significant changes were made to the staging algorithm for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremities or trunk, including the addition of 2 additional T (size) classifications in lieu of tumor depth and grouping lymph node metastasis (LNM) with distant metastasis as stage IV disease. Whether these changes improve staging system performance is questionable. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis of 21,396 adult patients with STS of the extremity or trunk in the SEER database compares the AJCC 8th edition staging system with the 7th edition and a newly proposed staging algorithm using a variety of statistical techniques. The effect of tumor size on disease-specific survival was assessed by flexible, nonlinear Cox proportional hazard regression using restricted cubic splines and fractional polynomials. Results: The slope of covariate-adjusted log hazards for sarcoma-specific survival decreases for tumors > 8 cm in greatest dimension, limiting prognostic information contributed by the new T4 classification in the AJCC 8th edition. Anatomic depth independently provides significant prognostic information. LNM is not equivalent to distant, non-nodal metastasis. Based on these findings, an alternative staging system is proposed and demonstrated to outperform both AJCC staging schemes. The analyses presented also disclose no evidence of improved clinical performance of the 8th edition compared with the previous edition. Conclusions: The AJCC 8th edition staging system for STS is no better than the previous 7th edition. Instead, a proposed staging system based on histologic grade, tumor size, and anatomic depth shows significantly higher predictive accuracy, with higher model concordance than either AJCC staging system. Changes to existing staging systems should improve the performance of prognostic models. Until such improvements are documented, AJCC committees should refrain from modifying established staging schemes.
引用
收藏
页码:144 / 152
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Role of Radiotherapy in Soft Tissue Sarcoma on Extremities With Lymph Nodes Metastasis: An IPTW Propensity Score Analysis of the SEER Database
    Qiu, Xinzhu
    He, Hongbo
    Zeng, Hao
    Tong, Xiaopeng
    Liu, Qing
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11
  • [42] The 8th edition AJCC/UICC TNM staging for p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma: is there space for improvement?
    Sharma, Shachi Jenny
    Wagner, Steffen
    Reder, Henrike Simone Frauke
    Kroll, Tobias
    Wuerdemann, Nora
    Klussmann, Jens Peter
    Wittekindt, Claus
    EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2018, 275 (12) : 3087 - 3091
  • [43] Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer based on the 8th edition of AJCC guidelines
    Deng, Yan
    Ming, Bing
    Wu, Jia-Long
    Zhou, Ting
    Zhang, Shi-Yong
    Chen, Yong
    Lan, Chuan
    Zhang, Xiao-Ming
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 11 (02) : 329 - 336
  • [44] 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice
    Rice, Thomas W.
    Patil, Deepa T.
    Blackstone, Eugene H.
    ANNALS OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY, 2017, 6 (02) : 119 - 130
  • [45] Critical evaluation of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition staging system for patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): A Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) analysis
    Kamarajah, Sivesh K.
    Frankel, Timothy L.
    Sonnenday, Christopher
    Cho, Clifford S.
    Nathan, Hari
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 117 (04) : 644 - 650
  • [46] Risk prediction in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Direct comparison of the MEGNA score and the 8th edition of the UICC/AJCC Cancer staging system
    Hahn, Felix
    Mueller, Lukas
    Maehringer-Kunz, Aline
    Schotten, Sebastian
    Dilber, Christoph
    Hinrichs, Jan B.
    Maschke, Sabine K.
    Galle, Peter R.
    Bartsch, Fabian
    Lang, Hauke
    Weinmann, Arndt
    Kloeckner, Roman
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (02):
  • [47] Stage migration with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system (8th edition) for differentiated thyroid cancer
    Shaha, Ashok R.
    Migliacci, Jocelyn C.
    Nixon, Lain J.
    Wang, Laura Y.
    Wong, Richard J.
    Morris, Luc G. T.
    Patel, Snehal G.
    Shah, Jatin P.
    Tuttle, R. Michael
    Ganly, Ian
    SURGERY, 2019, 165 (01) : 6 - 11
  • [48] The 8th edition of the TNM staging system-a curse or a blessing for oropharyngeal carcinoma?
    Becker, C.
    Hofauer, B. G.
    Mansour, N.
    Ketterer, M. C.
    Schulz, T.
    Knopf, A.
    HNO, 2021, 69 (02) : 89 - 94
  • [49] Proposed Modification of the pN2 Classification of the 8th Edition AJCC Staging System for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Preliminary Study Based on the Chinese Population
    Xi, Kexing
    Yu, Hui
    JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2021, 2021
  • [50] Comparison of a Tumor-Ratio-Metastasis Staging System and the 8th AJCC TNM Staging System for Gastric Cancer
    Zhang, Miaoquan
    Ding, Chao
    Xu, Lin
    Ou, Biyi
    Feng, Shoucheng
    Wang, Guoqiang
    Wang, Wei
    Liang, Yao
    Chen, Yingbo
    Zhou, Zhiwei
    Qiu, Haibo
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11