Modification of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for gallbladder carcinoma to improve prognostic precision

被引:14
|
作者
Jiang, Wei [1 ]
Zhao, Bingqing [2 ]
Li, Yongcheng [3 ]
Qi, Dunfeng [4 ]
Wang, Daxing [5 ]
机构
[1] Tianjin First Cent Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, Tianjin 300192, Peoples R China
[2] Tianjin Second Peoples Hosp, Dept Surg, Tianjin 300192, Peoples R China
[3] Southeast Univ, Xuzhou Cent Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Affiliated Xuzhou Hosp,Med Coll, Xuzhou 221009, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[4] Southeast Univ, Xuzhou Cent Hosp, Dept Hepat Biliary Pancreat Splen Surg, Affiliated Xuzhou Hosp,Med Coll, Xuzhou 221009, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[5] Peoples Hosp Huaiyin Jinan, Dept Gen Surg, Jinan 250021, Peoples R China
关键词
Gallbladder carcinoma; SEER; Overall survival; AJCC; Stage; Prognosis; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1186/s12885-020-07578-7
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) came into force since 2018. However, the prognostic precision of this staging system has not been properly assessed. This study aimed to evaluate the latest staging system and suggest modifications to improve its prognostic precision.MethodsData of patients with GBC was included from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015) and multicenter database (2010-2017). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were recorded including age, sex, race, grade, T category, N category, M category and stage. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot survival functions. The prediction power of the AJCC 8th edition and its modified version were evaluated using the concordance index (C-index).ResultsA total of 2779 GBC patients were included in the SEER database and 591 were collected from multicenter database. While no significant difference in survival of patients was observed between stages IVA and IVB using the 8th AJCC staging system (p>0.05), the prognosis of stage IIIA showed a slightly better outcome than stage IIIB (p=0.046) in the SEER database. In the multicenter database, there was no significant difference between stage IIIA and stage IIIB (p>0.05). Similarly, no significant difference in the survival of patients between stages IIIA and IIIB was observed when M0 patients with at least 6 lymph nodes (LNs) were analyzed (p>0.05) for both SEER and multicenter database. On the other hand, a modified staging system was able to stratify patients from stage IIIA, stage IIIB and stage IV (p<0.001). For the SEER database, the C-indexes of 8th AJCC staging system and that of its modified version were 0.709 and 0.742, respectively. For the multicenter database, the C-index of 8th AJCC staging system and that of our modified version were 0.635 and 0.679, respectively.ConclusionsThe modified 8th staging system proposed in this study can improve the prognostic precision of the 8th AJCC staging system for GBC. We therefore suggest including these modifications in the next update of AJCC staging system for GBC.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparing prognostic values of the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for gastric cancer
    Zhu, Ming-hua
    Zhang, Ke-cheng
    Yang, Ze-long
    Qiao, Zhi
    Chen, Lin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MARKERS, 2020, 35 (01): : 26 - 32
  • [22] Lymphnode staging update in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition cancer staging manual
    Olawaiye, Alexander B.
    Mutch, David G.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 150 (01) : 7 - 8
  • [23] The prognostic value of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system in triple-negative breast cancer
    Li, J. P.
    Zhang, X. M.
    Zhang, Y. S.
    Zheng, L. H.
    Liu, Y. J.
    NEOPLASMA, 2019, 66 (05) : 810 - 817
  • [24] Prognostic performance of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition of the TNM staging system in patients with early oral tongue cancer
    Amit, Moran
    Tam, Samantha
    Takahashi, Hideaki
    Choi, Karen Y.
    Zafereo, Mark
    Bell, Diana
    Weber, Randal S.
    HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2019, 41 (05): : 1270 - 1276
  • [25] Prognostic Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Staging System in 24,014 Korean Patients with Breast Cancer
    Kim, Isaac
    Choi, Hee Jun
    Ryu, Jai Min
    Lee, Se Kyung
    Yu, Jong Han
    Kim, Seok Won
    Nam, Seok Jin
    Lee, Jeong Eon
    JOURNAL OF BREAST CANCER, 2018, 21 (02) : 173 - 181
  • [26] The 7th/8th American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Modified Union for International Cancer Control Staging System for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Kim, In-Gyu
    Hu, Xu-Guang
    Wang, Hee-Jung
    Kim, Bong-Wan
    Hong, Sung Yeon
    Shen, Xue-Yin
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 60 (02) : 140 - 147
  • [27] Prognostic Value of Prognostic Staging System Based on the 8th Edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual in Different Molecular Subtypes of Invasive Breast Cancer
    Jang, Nuri
    Choi, Jung Eun
    Kang, Su Hwan
    Bae, Young Kyung
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2018, 31 : 77 - 78
  • [28] Prognostic Value of Prognostic Staging System Based on the 8th Edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual in Different Molecular Subtypes of Invasive Breast Cancer
    Jang, Nuri
    Choi, Jung Eun
    Kang, Su Hwan
    Bae, Young Kyung
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2018, 98 : 77 - 78
  • [29] Validation of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Prognostic Staging for young breast cancer patients
    Zhou, Juan
    Lei, Jian
    Wang, Jun
    Lian, Chen-Lu
    Hua, Li
    Yang, Li-Chao
    Wu, San-Gang
    AGING-US, 2020, 12 (08): : 7549 - 7560
  • [30] 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