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
  • [31] 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
  • [32] Letter to the Editor: "An Analysis of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition T Staging System for Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma"
    Asare, Elliot A.
    Perrier, Nancy D.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM, 2020, 105 (09): : E3488 - E3489
  • [33] 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
  • [34] 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
  • [35] 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
  • [36] Comparing staging assignments based on the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer
    Brian, R.
    Tseng, J.
    Bao, J.
    Jaskowiak, N.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2019, 79 (04)
  • [37] Prognostic predictability of the new American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th staging system for distal bile duct cancer: limited usefulness compared with the 7th staging system
    Kang, Jae Seung
    Lee, Seungyeoun
    Son, Donghee
    Han, Youngmin
    Lee, Kyung Bun
    Kim, Jae Ri
    Kwon, Wooil
    Kim, Sun-Whe
    Jang, Jin-Young
    JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES, 2018, 25 (02) : 124 - 130
  • [38] Has the 8th American joint committee on cancer TNM staging improved prognostic performance in oral cancer? A systematic review
    Erazo-Puentes, Maria C.
    Sanchez-Torres, Alba
    Aguirre-Urizar, Jose M.
    Bara-Casaus, Javier
    Gay-Escoda, Cosme
    MEDICINA ORAL PATOLOGIA ORAL Y CIRUGIA BUCAL, 2024, 29 (02): : e163 - e171
  • [39] A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) cancer staging system for luminal A breast cancer
    Jingming Ye
    Wenjun Wang
    Ling Xu
    Xuening Duan
    Yuanjia Cheng
    Ling Xin
    Hong Zhang
    Shuang Zhang
    Ting Li
    Yinhua Liu
    Chinese Journal of Cancer Research, 2017, 29 (04) : 351 - 360
  • [40] A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) cancer staging system for luminal A breast cancer
    Ye, Jingming
    Wang, Wenjun
    Xu, Ling
    Duan, Xuening
    Cheng, Yuanjia
    Xin, Ling
    Zhang, Hong
    Zhang, Shuang
    Li, Ting
    Liu, Yinhua
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 29 (04) : 351 - 360