Performance of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 8th Edition vs the Brigham and Women's Hospital Tumor Classification System for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

被引:131
|
作者
Ruiz, Emily Stamell [1 ]
Karia, Pritesh S. [1 ,2 ]
Besaw, Robert [1 ]
Schmults, Chrysalyne D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Dermatol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0032
中图分类号
R75 [皮肤病学与性病学];
学科分类号
100206 ;
摘要
ImportanceBrigham and Women's tumor classification (BWH) better predicts poor outcomes than American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 7th edition (AJCC 7). AJCC 8th edition (AJCC 8) has not been evaluated. ObjectivesTo compare BWH and AJCC 8 tumor classifications for head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNCSCC). Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA total of 459 patients with 680 HNCSCCs in this cohort study were staged via BWH and AJCC 8 classifications and poor outcomes (ie, local recurrence [LR], nodal metastasis [NM], disease specific death [DSD], and overall survival [OS]) were compared. The study was carried out at a single academic tertiary care center in Boston, Massachusetts. Main Outcomes and MeasuresDistinctiveness (outcome differences between tumor class), homogeneity (outcome similarity within tumor class), monotonicity (outcome worsening with increasing tumor class), and C statistic. ResultsA total of 680 HNCSCCs in 459 patients were included in this study, of which 313 (68%) were men with the mean (SD) age of 70.2 (12.7) years. The AJCC 8 (T3/T4) and BWH (T2b/T3) high tumor classes accounted for 121 (18%) vs 63 (9%), 17 (71%) vs 16 (70%), and 11 (85%) vs 12 (92%) of total cases, metastases, and deaths, respectively. The AJCC 8 T2 and T3 comprised 23% of cases and had statistically indistinguishable outcomes. The BWH had higher specificity (93%) and positive predictive value (30%) for identifying cases at risk for metastasis or death. C statistics showed BWH to be superior in predicting NM and DSD (P=.01 and P=.005, respectively), but there was no difference for LR and OS. Conclusions and RelevanceLack of distinction between AJCC T2 and T3 resulted in a 23% subset of HNCSCCs with significant risk of metastasis and death-too large of a group for routine nodal staging or consideration of adjuvant therapy. The BWH identifies the same number of poor outcomes in a 9% subset of HNCSCCs, thus minimizing inappropriate upstaging of low-risk disease.
引用
收藏
页码:819 / 825
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Predictive Value of the 8th Edition American Joint Commission Cancer (AJCC) Nodal Staging System for Patients with Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
    Liu, Jessica
    Ebrahimi, Ardalan
    Low, Tsu-Hui
    Gao, Kan
    Palme, Carsten E.
    Ch'ng, Sydney
    Ashford, Bruce G.
    Iyer, N. Gopalakrishna
    Clark, Jonathan
    Gupta, Ruta
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2018, 98 : 479 - 479
  • [42] Predictive value of the 8th edition American Joint Commission Cancer (AJCC) nodal staging system for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck
    Liu, Jessica
    Ebrahimi, Ardalan
    Low, Tsu-Hui
    Gao, Kan
    Palme, Carsten E.
    Sydney, Ch'ng
    Ashford, Bruce G.
    Iyer, N. Gopalakrishna
    Clark, Jonathan R.
    Gupta, Ruta
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 117 (04) : 765 - 772
  • [43] Modified staging classification of gallbladder carcinoma on the basis of the 8th edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system
    Wang, Jie
    Bo, Xiaobo
    Shi, Xiao
    Suo, Tao
    Xin, Yanlei
    Nan, Lingxi
    Wang, Changcheng
    Ni, Xiaoling
    Liu, Han
    Pan, Hongtao
    Shen, Sheng
    Li, Min
    Lu, Pinxiang
    Zhang, Dexiang
    Wang, Zhiqin
    Wang, Yueqi
    Liu, Houbao
    EJSO, 2020, 46 (04): : 527 - 533
  • [44] Predictive Value of the 8th Edition American Joint Commission Cancer (AJCC) Nodal Staging System for Patients with Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
    Liu, Jessica
    Ebrahimi, Ardalan
    Low, Tsu-Hui
    Gao, Kan
    Palme, Carsten E.
    Ch'ng, Sydney
    Ashford, Bruce G.
    Iyer, N. Gopalakrishna
    Clark, Jonathan
    Gupta, Ruta
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2018, 31 : 479 - 479
  • [45] Historical progress of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual in patients with breast cancer
    Kosaka, Yoshimasa
    Nishimiya, Hiroshi
    Kikuchi, Mariko
    Waraya, Mina
    Katoh, Hiroshi
    Sengoku, Norihiko
    TRANSLATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2019, 8 (03) : 719 - 721
  • [46] Melanoma Staging: American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th Edition and Beyond
    Jeffrey E. Gershenwald
    Richard A. Scolyer
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2018, 25 : 2105 - 2110
  • [47] Melanoma Staging: American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th Edition and Beyond
    Gershenwald, Jeffrey E.
    Scolyer, Richard A.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 25 (08) : 2105 - 2110
  • [48] Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging system for the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
    Shin, Dong Woo
    Lee, Jong-Chan
    Kim, Jaihwan
    Woo, Sang Myung
    Lee, Woo Jin
    Han, Sung-Sik
    Park, Sang-Jae
    Choi, Kui Son
    Cha, Hyo Soung
    Yoon, Yoo-Seok
    Han, Ho-Seong
    Hong, Eun Kyung
    Hwang, Jin-Hyeok
    EJSO, 2019, 45 (11): : 2159 - 2165
  • [49] Prognostic Implications of Altering the Nodal Staging for Anal Cancer in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th (AJCC8) Edition Staging Manual
    Elson, J. K.
    Kachnic, L. A.
    Longo, J. M.
    Tao, R.
    Amarnath, S. R.
    Lloyd, S. A.
    Kharofa, J. R., Jr.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2018, 102 (03): : E4 - E4
  • [50] Differences in 7th and 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging for periocular sebaceous carcinoma
    Reynolds, Roisin R.
    Davies, Michael J.
    Buffam, Frank, V
    Dolman, Peter J.
    White, Valerie A.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY-JOURNAL CANADIEN D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2021, 56 (01): : 31 - 36