Validation and comparison of the 7th and 8th edition of AJCC staging systems for non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposed staging systems from Hong Kong, Guangzhou, and Guangxi

被引:26
|
作者
OuYang, Pu-Yun [1 ]
Xiao, Yao [1 ]
You, Kai-Yun [2 ]
Zhang, Lu-Ning [3 ]
Lan, Xiao-Wen [1 ]
Zhang, Xiao-Min [1 ]
Xie, Fang-Yun [1 ]
机构
[1] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Dept Radiat Oncol, Collaborat Innovat Ctr Canc Med, Canc Ctr,State Key Lab Oncol South China, 651 Dongfeng East Rd, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong, Peoples R China
[2] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Sun Yat Sen Mem Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China
[3] Guangdong Pharmaceut Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Oncol, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
AJCC; Cancer staging; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY; MASTICATOR SPACE INVOLVEMENT; LYMPH-NODE LEVELS; RADIATION-THERAPY; PROGNOSTIC VALUE; IMPROVEMENT; GUIDELINES; CANCER; ERA;
D O I
10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.07.011
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objectives: We aimed to validate and compare the 7th and 8th edition of AJCC staging systems for non- metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposed staging systems from Hong Kong, Guangzhou, and Guangxi. Materials and methods: We retrospectively included 899 patients treated between November 5, 2002 and May 27, 2010. Separation and discrimination of each staging system in overall survival were primarily compared. Results: Compared with the 7th AJCC, the 8th AJCC and all proposed staging systems well separated across T-classification. T-classification from Guangzhou seemed to perform best in discrimination (C-index 0.6454), followed by the 8th AJCC (0.6451), the 7th AJCC (0.6386), Hong Kong (0.6376) and Guangxi (0.5889). For N-classification, no staging systems improved the weakness of the 7th AJCC in separating N2 and N1, except that suggestion from Guangzhou showed higher potential (P = 0.096). Besides, N-classification from Guangzhou had a C-index of 0.6444, larger than that of the 8th AJCC (0.6235), the 7th AJCC (0.6179), Hong Kong (0.6175) and Guangxi (0.6175). Accordingly, stage group of staging system from Guangzhou showed higher discrimination (C-index 0.6839), compared with the 8th AJCC (0.6791), the 7th AJCC (0.6766), Hong Kong (0.6765) and Guangxi (0.6688), despite that stage I and II remained inseparable (P = 0.322). Conclusions: The 8th AJCC staging system appeared to be better than the 7th AJCC. But the proposed staging system from Guangzhou was more likely to improve the separation and discrimination abilities. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:65 / 72
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of the Chinese 2008 and the 7th Edition AJCC Staging Systems for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
    Pan, J.
    Zong, J.
    Lin, S.
    Zhang, Y.
    Chen, Y.
    Guo, Q.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 78 (03): : S462 - S462
  • [2] A Comparison Between the Chinese 2008 and the 7th Edition AJCC Staging Systems for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
    Pan, Jianji
    Xu, Yuanji
    Qiu, Sufang
    Zong, Jingfeng
    Guo, Qiaojuan
    Zhang, Yu
    Lin, Shaojun
    Lu, Jiade J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2015, 38 (02): : 189 - 196
  • [3] AJCC 8th Edition oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma staging - Is it an improvement on the AJCC 7th Edition?
    Pollaers, Katherine
    Hinton-Bayre, Anton
    Friedland, Peter L.
    Farah, Camile S.
    ORAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 82 : 23 - 28
  • [4] Evaluation of 7th Edition of AJCC Staging System for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
    Ren, YuFeng
    Qiu, Huizhi
    Yuan, Yujie
    Ye, Jinning
    Tian, Yunhong
    Wen, Bixiu
    Zhang, Weijun
    Li, Qun
    JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2017, 8 (09): : 1665 - 1672
  • [5] AJCC 7th edition staging classification is more applicable than AJCC 8th edition staging classification for invasive IPMN
    Fan, Zhiyao
    Cheng, He
    Jin, Kaizhou
    Gong, Yitao
    Huang, Qiuyi
    Xu, Jin
    Ni, Quanxing
    Yu, Xianjun
    Liu, Chen
    Luo, Guopei
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 17 (01)
  • [6] AJCC 7th edition staging classification is more applicable than AJCC 8th edition staging classification for invasive IPMN
    Zhiyao Fan
    He Cheng
    Kaizhou Jin
    Yitao Gong
    Qiuyi Huang
    Jin Xu
    Quanxing Ni
    Xianjun Yu
    Chen Liu
    Guopei Luo
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 17
  • [7] AJCC 8th Edition (2017) versus AJCC 7th Edition (2010) in thin melanoma staging
    Roncati, L.
    Piscioli, F.
    NEOPLASMA, 2018, 65 (05) : 651 - 655
  • [8] Comparing the 7th and 8th editions of UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the IMRT era
    Tao He
    Ruo-Nan Yan
    Hua-Ying Chen
    Yuan-Yuan Zeng
    Zhong-Zheng Xiang
    Fang Liu
    Bian-Fei Shao
    Jia-Chun Ma
    Xi-Ran Wang
    Lei Liu
    BMC Cancer, 21
  • [9] Comparing the 7th and 8th editions of UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the IMRT era
    He, Tao
    Yan, Ruo-Nan
    Chen, Hua-Ying
    Zeng, Yuan-Yuan
    Xiang, Zhong-Zheng
    Liu, Fang
    Shao, Bian-Fei
    Ma, Jia-Chun
    Wang, Xi-Ran
    Liu, Lei
    BMC CANCER, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [10] Comparison of the 11th Japanese classification and the AJCC 7th and 8th staging systems in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients
    Park, Seong Yong
    Kim, Dae Joon
    Suh, Jee Won
    Byun, Go Eun
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2018, 10 (08) : 5039 - 5046