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
  • [1] The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Breast Cancer Staging, Eighth Edition, is more Reflective of Cancer Biology than the Seventh Edition
    Young, Jessica
    Asaoka, Mariko
    Ghasemi, Farhad
    Chida, Kohei
    Roy, Arya Mariam
    Yan, Li
    Hakamada, Kenichi
    Takabe, Kazuaki
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2025, : 3268 - 3277
  • [2] American Joint Committee on Cancer's Staging System for Breast Cancer, Eighth Edition: Summary for Clinicians
    Zhu, Haoling
    Dogan, Basak E.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BREAST HEALTH, 2021, 17 (03) : 234 - 238
  • [3] Breast Cancer-Major Changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual
    Giuliano, Armando E.
    Connolly, James L.
    Edge, Stephen B.
    Mittendorf, Elizabeth A.
    Rugo, Hope S.
    Solin, Lawrence J.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Winchester, David J.
    Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.
    CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2017, 67 (04) : 291 - 303
  • [4] 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
  • [5] Validation of the Eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer Anatomic and Prognostic Staging System for Breast Cancer
    Yang, Pei-dong
    Peng, Qing-Qin
    Lian, Wei-bin
    Fu, Fang-meng
    Wang, Chuan
    Chen, Debo
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 270 : 539 - 546
  • [6] Prostate Cancer - Major Changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual
    Buyyounouski, Mark K.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    McKenney, Jesse K.
    Sartor, Oliver
    Sandler, Howard M.
    Amin, Mahul B.
    Kattan, Michael W.
    Lin, Daniel W.
    CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2017, 67 (03) : 246 - 253
  • [7] Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual of Breast Cancer by the American Joint Committee on Cancer: are the new changes to improve staging or a treatment decision tool?
    Quinn, Cecily
    Rakha, Emad A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2018, 71 (11) : 1028 - 1029
  • [8] Comparison of the seventh and eighth edition american joint committee on cancer oral cavity staging systems
    Cramer, John D.
    Reddy, Abhita
    Ferris, Robert L.
    Duvvuri, Umamaheswar
    Samant, Sandeep
    LARYNGOSCOPE, 2018, 128 (10) : 2351 - 2360
  • [9] American Joint Committee on Cancer's Staging System for Breast Cancer, Eighth Edition: What the Radiologist Needs to Know
    Kalli, Sirishma
    Semine, Alan
    Cohen, Sara
    Naber, Stephen P.
    Makim, Shital S.
    Bahl, Manisha
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2018, 38 (07) : 1921 - 1933
  • [10] Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual
    Gershenwald, Jeffrey E.
    Scolyer, Richard A.
    Hess, Kenneth R.
    Sondak, Vernon K.
    Long, Georgina V.
    Ross, Merrick I.
    Lazar, Alexander J.
    Faries, Mark B.
    Kirkwood, John M.
    McArthur, Grant A.
    Haydu, Lauren E.
    Eggermont, Alexander M. M.
    Flaherty, Keith T.
    Balch, Charles M.
    Thompson, John F.
    CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2017, 67 (06) : 472 - 492