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

被引:13
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]   Comparison of Pathological Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage Groups According to the Updated Version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Breast Cancer Staging 8th Edition [J].
Ibis, Kamuran ;
Ozkurt, Selnur ;
Kucucuk, Seden ;
Yavuz, Ekrem ;
Saip, Pinar .
MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2018, 24 :3637-3643
[42]   Incorporating Biologic Factors into the American Joint Committee on Cancer Breast Cancer Staging System Review of the Supporting Evidence [J].
Weiss, Anna ;
King, Tari A. ;
Hunt, Kelly K. ;
Mittendorf, Elizabeth A. .
SURGICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2018, 98 (04) :687-+
[43]   Comments on the new American Joint Committee on cancer staging for breast cancer. What's new for the pathologist? [J].
Penault-Llorca, F .
ANNALES DE PATHOLOGIE, 2003, 23 (06) :492-495
[45]   A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer [J].
Lee, Sae Byul ;
Sohn, Guiyun ;
Kim, Jisun ;
Chung, Il Yong ;
Lee, Jong Won ;
Kim, Hee Jeong ;
Ko, Beom Seok ;
Son, Byung Ho ;
Ahn, Sei-Hyun .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2018, 169 (02) :257-266
[46]   A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer [J].
Sae Byul Lee ;
Guiyun Sohn ;
Jisun Kim ;
Il Yong Chung ;
Jong Won Lee ;
Hee Jeong Kim ;
Beom Seok Ko ;
Byung Ho Son ;
Sei-Hyun Ahn .
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2018, 169 :257-266
[47]   Impact of biomarkers and genetic profiling on breast cancer prognostication: A comparative analysis of the 8th edition of breast cancer staging system [J].
Yoon, Esther C. ;
Schwartz, Christopher ;
Brogi, Edi ;
Ventura, Katia ;
Wen, Hannah ;
Darvishian, Farbod .
BREAST JOURNAL, 2019, 25 (05) :829-837
[48]   The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Thymic Tumors Staging Project: The Impact of the Eighth Edition of the Union for International Cancer Control and American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Stage Classification of Thymic Tumors [J].
Ruffini, Enrico ;
Fang, Wentao ;
Guerrera, Francesco ;
Huang, James ;
Okumura, Meinoshin ;
Kim, Dong Kwan ;
Girard, Nicolas ;
Bille, Andrea ;
Boubia, Souheil ;
Cangir, Ayten Kayi ;
Detterbeck, Frank ;
Falkson, Conrad ;
Filosso, Pier Luigi ;
Giaccone, Giuseppe ;
Kondo, Kazuya ;
Infante, Maurizio ;
Lucchi, Marco ;
Marino, Mirella ;
Marom, Edith M. ;
Nicholson, Andrew G. ;
Rimner, Andreas ;
Rami-Porta, Ramon ;
Asamura, Hisao .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2020, 15 (03) :436-447
[49]   Iris Melanoma Outcomes Based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer Classification (Eighth Edition) in 432 Patients [J].
Shields, Carol L. ;
Di Nicola, Maura ;
Bekerman, Vladislav P. ;
Kaliki, Swathi ;
Alarcon, Carolina ;
Fulco, Enzo ;
Shields, Jerry A. .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 125 (06) :913-923
[50]   Independent Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Prostate Cancer Staging Classification [J].
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