scholarly journals A simplified T classification based on the 8th edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol Volume 11 ◽  
pp. 3163-3169
Author(s):  
Xing-Xi Pan ◽  
Li-Hua Tong ◽  
Yong-Fa Chen ◽  
Fei-Long Li ◽  
Wu-Bing Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Ajcc Staging System ◽  
Ajcc Staging ◽  
T Classification ◽  
8Th Edition

scholarly journals Comparing the 7th and 8th editions of UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the IMRT era

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao He ◽  
Ruo-Nan Yan ◽  
Hua-Ying Chen ◽  
Yuan-Yuan Zeng ◽  
Zhong-Zheng Xiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
7Th Edition ◽  
Staging Systems ◽  
N Classification ◽  
Ajcc Staging System ◽  
Ajcc Staging ◽  
T Classification

Abstract Background To compare the prognostic value of 7th and 8th editions of the Union for International Cancer Control/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC/AJCC) staging system for patients with nonmetastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and simultaneous integrated boost– intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SIB-IMRT). Methods Patients with NPC (n = 300) who received SIB-IMRT were included. Survival by T-classification, N-classification, and stage group of each staging system was assessed. Results For T-classification, nonsignificant difference was observed between T1 and T3 and between T2 and T3 disease (P = 0.066 and 0.106, respectively) for overall survival (OS) in the 7th staging system, whereas all these differences were significant in the 8th staging system (all P < 0.05). The survival curves for disease-free survival (DFS) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) in both staging systems were similar, except for the comparison of T2 and T4 disease for LRRFS (P = 0.070 for 7th edition; P = 0.011 for 8th edition). For N-classification, significant differences were observed between N2 and N3 diseases after revision (P = 0.046 and P = 0.043 for OS and DFS, respectively). For staging system, no significant difference was observed between IVA and IVB of 7th edition. Conclusion The 8th AJCC staging system appeared to have superior prognosis value in the SIB-IMRT era compared with the 7th edition.

scholarly journals Comparison of The 7th and 8th Editions of The Union for International Cancer Control /American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System for Nonmetastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in The Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Era

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao He ◽  
Ruo-Nan Yan ◽  
Hua-Ying Chen ◽  
Yuan-Yuan Zeng ◽  
Zhong-Zheng Xiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
7Th Edition ◽  
N Classification ◽  
Ajcc Staging System ◽  
Ajcc Staging ◽  
T Classification

Abstract Background: To compare the prognostic value of 7th and 8th editions of the Union for International Cancer Control /American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for patients with nonmetastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and simultaneous integrated boost– intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SIB-IMRT).Methods: Patients with NPC (n = 300) who received SIB-IMRT were included. Survival by T-classification, N-classification, and stage group of each staging system was assessed.Results: For T-classification, nonsignificant difference was observed between T1 and T2 and between T2 and T3 disease (P = 0.066 and 0.106, respectively) for overall survival (OS) in the 7th staging system, whereas all these differences were significant in the 8th staging system (all P < 0.05). The survival curves for disease-free survival (DFS) and LRFS in both staging systems were similar, except for the comparison of T2 and T4 disease for LRFS (P = 0.07 for 7th edition; P = 0.011 for 8th edition). For N-classification, significant differences were observed between N2 and N3 diseases after revision (P = 0.046 and P = 0.043 for OS and DFS, respectively). For staging system, no significant difference was observed between IVA and IVB of 7th edition.Conclusion: The 8th AJCC staging system appeared to have superior prognosis value in the SIB-IMRT era compared with the 7th edition.

scholarly journals Prognostic value of subclassification (pT2 stage) of pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer: Confirmation of the changes introduced in the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system

2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo Pontes Antunes ◽  
Belmiro Parada ◽  
João Carvalho ◽  
Miguel Eliseu ◽  
Roberto Jarimba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Distant Metastases ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Pathological Evaluation ◽  
Ajcc Staging System ◽  
Oncological Results ◽  
Ajcc Staging ◽  
8Th Edition

Objective: The last edition of the AJCC staging system eliminated the pT2 subclassification of prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to evaluate the association of pT2 subclassification with the oncological results of patients with PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). Material and methods: We evaluated 367 patients who underwent RP between 2009 and 2016, with pT2 disease in the final pathological evaluation. We assessed differences in rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis and mortality between T2 substages (pT2a/b vs pT2c). Results: Fifty-three (14.4%) patients presented pT2a/b disease and 314 (85.6%) pT2c disease. The mean follow-up time was 4.9 ± 2.6 years. Grade group scores (p = 0.1) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) (p = 0.2) did not differed between pT2 substages. The rate of BCR in pT2a/b and pT2c patients was 11.3% and 18.2%, respectively (p = 0.2). Five (9.4%) patients with pT2a/b and 45 (14.3%) with pT2c substage underwent salvage radiotherapy (p = 0.3). The rate of positive surgical margins did not differ between groups (p = 0.2). Seven (2.2%) patients with pT2c had lymph nodes or distant metastases. The overall survival was 92.5% and 93.6% in pT2a/b and pT2c, respectively (p = 0.2). Conclusion: Our results are in accordance with the changes introduced in the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system in which the pT2 subclassification was eliminated.

scholarly journals A review of the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system for oropharyngeal cancer according to HPV status

2020 ◽  
Vol 277 (9) ◽  
pp. 2407-2412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Machczyński ◽  
Ewa Majchrzak ◽  
Patryk Niewinski ◽  
Joanna Marchlewska ◽  
Wojciech Golusiński
Keyword(s):  
Oropharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Cancer Staging ◽  
Nodal Metastasis ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
Previous Edition ◽  
Hpv Status ◽  
Ajcc Staging System ◽  
Ajcc Staging ◽  
8Th Edition

Abstract Background The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has increased substantially in recent decades, particularly p16-positive human papillomavirus (HPV)-related OPSCC, which has risen by 50% in western countries. HPV-positivity is the most favourable non-anatomic predictor of oropharyngeal cancer outcomes, which underscores the importance of incorporating this variable into the cancer staging system. Methods In the present article, we review the differences between the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC staging system, with particular focus on the role of HPV-positivity in patients with head and neck cancer. Results In the previous edition (7th edition) of the AJCC/UICC manual, HPV status and its correlation with nodal metastasis were not considered, thereby leading to incorrect lymph node (N) staging and, potentially, inadequate treatment and worse outcomes. The 8th edition of the AJCC manual addresses these issues, providing more accurate discrimination between groups and better risk stratification in patients with HPV-positive OPSCC. In the future, additional adjustments are likely to be needed, such as unification of the pathological and clinical staging models. Conclusions The new staging system is substantially more accurate than the previous system and should be widely adopted in routine clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document