Eyelid sebaceous gland carcinoma: An assessment of the T classification of the American Joint Committee of Cancer TNM staging system 8th versus 7th edition

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212093648
Author(s):  
Fatimah AlHammad ◽  
Deepak P Edward ◽  
Hind M Alkatan ◽  
Sahar Elkhamary ◽  
Adriana Iuliano ◽  
...  

Purpose: To assess the prognostic values of the T classification of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee of Cancer staging system and compare it to the 7th edition. Methods: Multicenter retrospective study of patients with eyelid sebaceous gland carcinoma. The primary outcome measure was the differences between outcomes when tumors were staged with either 7th or 8th edition. The measures evaluated included presenting features, management, histopathology, metastasis, recurrence, and mortality. Results: Of the 60 patients (median age 73 years), 31 (51.7%) were females. A change in T staging occurred in 39 patients (65%) when the 8th edition was applied. Advanced categories (T3/T4) were significantly associated with nodal metastasis ( p = 0.037) using the 8th edition criteria but not with the 7th edition ( p = 0.066). The 8th edition T categorization significantly correlated with eye survival ( p = 0.022) while the 7th edition did not ( p = 0.058). Applying the 8th edition, category T4 at presentation was associated with a higher risk of nodal metastasis ( p = 0.037) but not associated with local recurrence, distant metastasis, or tumor-related death ( p = 0.281, p = 0.737, p = 0.319, respectively). T3/T4 category tumors were significantly associated with poor tumor differentiation ( p = 0.001), and papillary histologic pattern ( p = 0.024) but not with pagetoid spread ( p = 0.056). Conclusion: The application of the 8th edition AJCC staging system for eyelid SGC may accurately predict nodal metastasis. Local recurrence and distant metastasis were not significantly associated with T classification, using either edition. Poor tumor differentiation and papillary pattern were associated with T3/T4 categories suggesting that pathological features may assist in determining prognosis.

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. viii424
Author(s):  
L. Singh ◽  
M.K. Singh ◽  
N. Pushker ◽  
S. Bakhshi ◽  
M.A. Rizvi ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
TarjaniV Dave ◽  
Adit Gupta ◽  
Swathi Kaliki ◽  
Dilip Mishra

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicki H. Chu ◽  
Michael T. Tetzlaff ◽  
Carlos A. Torres-Cabala ◽  
Victor G. Prieto ◽  
Roland Bassett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Motoo Nomura ◽  
Shigeru Tsunoda ◽  
Katsuyuki Sakanaka ◽  
Masashi Tamaoki ◽  
Yusuke Amanuma ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The 7th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM staging system is based on pathologic data from esophageal cancers treated by surgery alone. In the 8th edition of UICC-TNM staging system, there is no information available for treatment modality (surgery alone or neoadjuvant therapy [NAC] followed by surgery [NAC-S]), although clinical stage, neoadjuvant pathologic stage, and pathologic stage were analyzed and identified. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of the new staging system on esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) patients treated by NAC-S. Methods Database of 140 consecutive ESCC patients in our hospital was retrospectively restaged in 7th and 8th UICC-TNM system. The prognostic impacts of pathologic stage after NAC according to the both staging systems were compared. Results The median follow-up period was 4.8 years (range 0.2–9.7), with 49 patients dead at the time of analysis. In 7th edition, the 3-year overall survival rates (3y-OS) of ypStages 0, I, II, III, and IV were 100%, 93.5%, 93.5%, 43.9%, and 0.0%, respectively. In 8th edition, the 3y-OS of ypStages 0, I, II, III, and IV were 100%, 96.5%, 90.2%, 51.7%, and 29.6%, respectively. There were no marked differences between 7th and 8th edition in the prognoses. The both editions poorly distinguish the prognoses of ypStages 0, I, and II. For pathological prognostic group in 7th edition, the 3y-OS of Groups 0, I, II, III, and IV were 100%, 97.0%, 90.6%, 43.9%, and 0.0%, respectively. For pathological prognostic group in 8th edition, the 3y-OS of Groups 0, I, II, III, and IV were 100%, 96.7%, 89.8%, 51.7%, and 29.6%, respectively. For patients with ypStages 0-II, pretreatment higher CEA was poor prognostic factor (HR 7.1, 95% confidence interval 1.9–25.9). Conclusion Our study indicates the problem that the ypStage in the 8th TNM staging system poorly distinguish the prognoses of ypStages 0, I, and II in patients undergoing NAC-S. Additional study is needed to evaluate the role of ypStage 0-II incorporation of new prognostic factors. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document