Number of negative lymph nodes should be considered for incorporation into staging for breast cancer

This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the number of involved lymph nodes (pN), number of removed lymph nodes (RLNs), lymph node ratio (LNR), number of negative lymph nodes (NLNs), and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) in breast cancer patients. The records of 2,515 breast cancer patients who received a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery were retrospectively reviewed. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves, and Cox regression analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors. The median follow-up time was 64.2 months, and the 8-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 74.6% and 82.3%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that pN stage, LNR, number of RLNs, and number of NLNs were significant prognostic factors for DFS and OS (all, P < 0.05). LODDS was a significant prognostic factor for OS (P = 0.021). Multivariate analysis indicated that pN stage and the number of NLNs were independent prognostic factors for DFS and OS. A higher number of NLNs was associated with higher DFS and OS, and a higher number of involved lymph nodes were associated with poorer DFS and OS. Patients with a NLNs count > 9 had better survival (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that the NLNs count had a prognostic value in patients with different pT stages and different lymph node status (log-rank P < 0.05). For breast cancer, pN stage and NLNs count have a better prognostic value compared to the RLNs count, LNR, and LODDS. Number of negative lymph nodes should be considered for incorporation into staging for breast cancer.     

Relative prognostic value of TNM7 vs TNM6 in staging oesophageal cancer

Background:

Stage migration consequent upon new cancer staging definitions may result in artifactual alterations in stage-specific survival and prognosis. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of the new TNM7 oesophageal cancer (OC) system on stage categorisation and survival when compared with historical controls.

Methods:

A total of 202 patients diagnosed with operable OC and undergoing oesophagectomy (118 neoadjuvant chemotherapy) were studied. Patients originally classified and staged using TNM6 were retrospectively re-staged using TNM7.

Results:

Re-classification of TNM7 resulted in stage migration in 11.9% of patients (9.9% downstaged, 2.0% upstaged) when compared with TNM6. Five-year survival for stages I, II and III was 78%, 46% and 18% using TNM6, compared with 62%, 51% and 18%, respectively, using TNM7. Univariable analysis revealed that histological grade (P=0.006), pT (P<0.0001), TNM6 pN (P<0.0001), TNM7 pN (P<0.0001), number of lymph node metastases (P<0.0001), TNM6 stage group (P<0.0001), TNM7 stage group (P<0.0001) and TNM7 prognostic group (P<0.0001) were all associated with survival. Multivariable analysis revealed that only the TNM7 prognostic group was independently and significantly associated with survival.

Conclusion:

TNM7 is a better prognostic tool than TNM6 and represents an important advance in staging OC.     

Tumor border configuration added to TNM staging better stratifies stage II colorectal cancer patients into prognostic subgroups

BACKGROUND:

Reproducible and well characterized prognostic histomorphologic criteria added to current pathological staging could have an immediate effect on refining prognosis in colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the additive effect of tumor border configuration and peritumoral lymphocytic infiltration on the selection of patients for adjuvant therapy classified by TNM.

METHODS:

A total of 1420 primary colorectal cancers with complete clinicopathological data from multiple treatment centers were analyzed. The prognostic effect of tumor border configuration (pushing or infiltrating) and peritumoral lymphocytic infiltration was assessed, validated by resampling of the data, and compared with TNM staging. All P values were 2‐sided.

RESULTS:

Multivariate analysis confirmed the adverse prognostic value of the tumor border configuration (P < .001), but not of peritumoral lymphocytic infiltration. The addition of tumor border configuration to T and N category identified 2 major prognostic subgroups (relative risk of death, 4.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.53‐8.94). Moreover, stage II patients with a pushing border had a 5‐year survival rate of 82.1% (95% CI, 71.8%‐90.3%), whereas an infiltrating border resulted in a significantly more adverse outcome (5‐year survival rate, 62.7%; 95% CI, 48.0‐76.2%), closely resembling that of stage III patients. Similar results were obtained after adjusting for adjuvant therapy (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

The classification of patients into prognostic subgroups is improved with the addition of tumor border configuration to TNM stage. In particular, patients with stage II disease characterized by an infiltrating tumor border have poor clinical outcome and represent a subset of lymph node‐negative patients who could be considered for adjuvant therapy. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Recent advances in non-invasive axillary staging for breast cancer

Nodal staging in breast cancer is a key predictor of prognosis and directs subsequent adjuvant therapy. This article addresses current modalities of nodal staging in breast cancer but focuses on promising non-invasive alternatives for staging the axilla.     

膀胱癌不同TNM分期对根治性膀胱切除术患者预后的影响

目的:探讨膀胱癌不同TNM分期对根治膀胱切除术患者预后的影响.方法:选取2011年8月至2014年12月在湖北医药学院附属东风医院泌尿外科住院进行诊治的膀胱癌患者92例,CT检查TNM分期中T1期(30例)、T2期(20例)、T3期(32例)和T4期(10例),所有患者都给予腹腔镜下根治膀胱切除术,观察所有患者的预后情况.结果:对比四组分期的手术时间,其差别在统计学上没有意义,然而T3/T4期患者比T1/T2期患者有更多的术后排气时间、住院时间以及术中出血量(P＜0.05).T3/T4期患者术后1个月的切口出血、切口感染、吻合口瘘、肺部感染等并发症发生情况明显高于T1/T2期患者(JP＜0.05).T3/T4期患者的膀胱容量和最大尿流率明显低于T1/T2期患者,而残余尿量明显高于T1/T2期患者,对比差异都有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论:膀胱癌不同TNM分期能有效预测根治膀胱切除患者的围手术期创伤情况和术后尿动力学状况,值得推广应用.     

Proposed revision of N categories to the 8th edition of the AJCC‐TNM staging system for non‐surgical esophageal squamous cell cancer

The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor‐Node‐Metastasis (AJCC‐TNM) staging system for esophageal cancer (EC) retained the definition of N categories based on the number of metastatic lymph nodes (LN). However, it is difficult to accurately determine the number of metastatic LN without surgery. This study aimed to propose a revision to the N categories of the 8th edition AJCC‐TNM staging system that makes staging easier to perform and better represents the prognosis of non‐surgical esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC). We retrospectively reviewed the data of 336 patients with ESCC. The revised N categories were based on the anatomic regions of LN metastasis (cervix, thorax and abdomen). Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan‐Meier method and compared using the log‐rank test. Multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Survival differences were adequately discriminated when the revised N categories were used. Subgroup analyses by T stage showed significant difference in overall survival between the revised N categories. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that T stage, revised N category, age, sex and treatment modality were independent risk factors, with the revised N category being the most significant variable. The revised N categories determined in this study can be used to fill gaps in the staging system for patients with non‐surgical ESCC, which can help clinicians to make better treatment decisions and more effectively predict patient prognoses. Future large‐scale studies are required to validate these results.     

Real-world clinical significance of nonbiological factors with staging,prognosis and clinical management in rectal cancer

BackgroundThe clinical guidance of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging system is established only in biological factors and does not include nonbiological factors (NBFs). We assessed the clinical value of incorporating NBFs into the TNM staging system in point of the clinical management and prognostic prediction accuracy of rectal cancer.MethodsWe used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database and identified 12,515 patients with rectal cancer who were diagnosed between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and Kaplan–Meier curves were used to determine the probabilities of cancer-specific survival (CSS) according to different TNM-NBF stages.ResultsMultivariate Cox regression analysis showed that county percentage with a bachelor’s degree, insurance status, unemployment status, and marital status were all significant prognostic NBFs (p < 0.05). The concordance index of TNM-NBF stages was 0.815 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8072–0.8228). Multivariate Cox analyses showed that, compared with NBF0-stage, NBF1-stage was contacted with a 54.5% increased risk of cancer-specific mortality in rectal cancer, which increased to 68.3% in non-metastatic rectal cancer (all p < 0.001). NBF0-stage showed a CSS benefit as compared with NBF1-stage (p < 0.001).ConclusionsWe found that NBF-stage was an independent prognostic factor for survival in rectal cancer. The influence of NBFs on survival in rectal cancer warrants greater clinical attention. Furthermore, the consolidation of NBF-stage into the TNM staging system is crucial to better prognostic prediction accuracy and individualized risk-adaptive therapies.     

A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) cancer staging system for luminal A breast cancer

Objective:We retrospectively analyzed the clinical prognostic value of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for luminal A breast cancer.Methods:Using both the anatomic and prognostic staging in the 8th edition of AJCC cancer staging system,we restaged patients with luminal A breast cancer treated at the Breast Disease Center,Peking University First Hospital from 2008 to 2014.Follow-up data including 5-year disease free survival (DFS),overall survival (OS) and other clinic-pathological data were collected to analyze the differences between the two staging subgroups.Results:This study included 421 patients with luminal A breast cancer (median follow-up,61 months).The 5-year DFS and OS rates were 98.3％ and 99.3％,respectively.Significant differences in 5-year DFS but not OS were observed between different anatomic disease stages.Significant differences were observed in both 5-year DFS and OS between different prognostic stages.Application of the prognostic staging system resulted in assignment of 175 of 421 patients (41.6％) to a different group compared to their original anatomic stages.In total,102 of 103 patients with anatomic stage ⅡA changed to prognostic stage ⅠB,and 24 of 52 patients with anatomic stage ⅡB changed to prognostic stage ⅠB,while 1 changed to prognostic stage ⅢB.Twenty-two of 33 patents with anatomic stage ⅢA were down-staged to ⅡA when staged by prognostic staging system,and the other 11 patients were down-staged to ⅡB.Two patients with anatomic stage ⅢB were down-staged to ⅢA.Among seven patients with anatomic stage ⅢC cancer,two were down-staged to ⅢA and four were down-staged to stage ⅢB.Conclusions:The 8th edition of AJCC prognostic staging system is an important supplement to the breast cancer staging system.More clinical trials are needed to prove its ability to guide selection of proper systemic therapy and predict prognosis of breast cancer.     

Comparisons of remnant primary,residual, and recurrent gastric cancer and applicability of the 8th AJCC TNM classification for remnant gastric cancer staging

BackgroundBecause there is no well-established postoperative staging system for patients with remnant gastric cancer (RGC), we compared the overall survival of patients categorized with the 8th AJCC TNM staging system.MethodA total of 391 patients underwent surgery for RGC at our institution between 1996 and 2019. Among them, 201 patients received their first surgery at our institution and 190 received primary surgery elsewhere. We retrospectively reviewed their medical records and classified each according to Kaminishi’s classification and the 8th AJCC TNM staging system for comparison and analysis.ResultsAll 201 patients who underwent their first operation at our institution for malignancy were classified as primary (n = 41, 20.4%), residual (n = 103, 51.2%), and recurrent (n = 57, 28.4%) RGC. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for the primary, residual, and recurrent RGC groups were 78.1%, 73.8% and 56.0%, respectively (p = 0.004). In a multivariate analysis, RGC classification was an independent prognostic factor along with the TNM staging system (p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the three groups of the same TNM stage. In addition, the OS of each stage related to primary cancer was not significantly different from the OS of RGC patients classified in TNM staging.ConclusionThe RGC classification system we used may reflect the comprehensive aspects of previous disease states and predict the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer. In addition, the 8th AJCC TNM classification is a practical and applicable staging system for RGC.     

The rationale for and long-term outcome of incomplete axillary staging in elderly women with primary breast cancer

Background

The proportion of elderly women diagnosed with breast cancer is rising. Standard treatment, including axillary staging, is often not given to these patients. This study aimed to investigate reasons to omit any surgical axillary staging or to refrain from completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive-sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB); so-called “incomplete staging”. Furthermore, the impact of incomplete staging on regional control and survival in patients aged 75 or older was evaluated.

CT在肺癌临床分期中的应用和评价

为使肺癌得到正确的诊断和治疗，应用新的肺癌国际TNM分期标准是十分重要的。由于CT有助于在肺癌诊断和分期过程中对于原发肿瘤和纵隔淋巴结的评估，同时也有助于搜寻远处转移灶。因此，CT是肺癌最重要的辅助影像检查，而且也可进一步明确观察大气管、大血管、淋巴结及胸膜受侵犯的情况，从而为肺癌的TNM分期提供更有价值的信息和资料。PET-CT的图像融合可使肺癌的定位更加准确，使解剖位置和病灶代谢两者关系更为完善。PET／CT的联合检查和图像融合可改进肺癌的术前TNM分期，可能成为肺癌无创性分期中最为优良的方法。     

Clinical relevance of biologic factors in male breast cancer

There is ample information on the clinical role of biologic factors in female breast cancer: urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA), its receptor uPAR, its inhibitors PAI-1 and PAI-2, cathepsin D and pS2-protein. However such reports are missing or very rare for male breast cancer. We determined the cytosolic levels of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), cathepsin D, pS2-protein, uPA, uPAR, PAI-1 and PAI-2 of the primary tumour tissues from 40 male breast cancer patients. The tumour levels were compared with those of 180 matched females and 4114 historic females with breast cancer. In male breast tumours the level of PgR was higher, those of uPA, PAI-1, PAI-2 and cathepsin D lower. The tumour level of ER in men was similar to those in the matched and postmenopausal women, but much higher than those in the historic women. Male breast cancer seems to be biologically different from female breast cancer. Correlation of the eight cell biologic factors with disease outcome showed that PAI-1 (p=0.03) was the only independent predictive factor for poor prognosis in male breast cancer.     

Prostate cancer – major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor‐node‐metastasis (TNM) Staging Manual has been updated and improved to ensure the highest degree of clinical relevance and to improve its utility for patient evaluation and clinical research. Major changes include: 1) pathologically organ‐confined disease is now considered pT2 and is no longer subclassified by extent of involvement or laterality, 2) tumor grading now includes both the Gleason score (as in the seventh edition criteria) and the grade group (introduced in the eighth edition criteria), 3) prognostic stage group III includes select, organ‐confined disease based on prostate‐specific antigen and Gleason/grade group status, and 4) 2 statistical prediction models are included in the staging manual. The AJCC will continue to critically analyze emerging prostate cancer biomarkers and tools for their ability to prognosticate and guide treatment decision making with the highest level of accuracy and confidence for patients and physicians. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:245–253 . © 2017 American Cancer Society .     

Baseline staging tests based on molecular subtype is necessary for newly diagnosed breast cancer

Background

Bone scanning (BS), liver ultrasonography (LUS), and chest radiography (CXR) are commonly recommended for baseline staging in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate whether these tests are indicated for specific patient subpopulation based on clinical staging and molecular subtype.

Methods

A retrospective study on 5406 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer was conducted to identify differences in occurrence of metastasis based on clinical staging and molecular subtypes. All patients had been evaluated by BS, LUS and CXR at diagnosis.

Results

Complete information on clinical staging was available in 5184 patients. For stage I, II, and III, bone metastasis rate was 0%, 0.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < 0.01); liver metastasis rate was 0%, 0.1%, and 1.0%, respectively (P < 0.01); lung metastasis rate was 0.1%, 0.1%, and 0.7%, respectively (P < 0.01). Complete information on molecular subtype was available in 3411 patients. For Luminal A, Luminal B (HER2^-), Luminal BH (HER2⁺), HER2⁺ overexpression, and Basal-like, bone metastasis rate was 1.4%, 0.7%, 2.5%, 2.7%, and 0.9%, respectively (P < 0.05); liver metastasis rate was 0.1%, 0.1%, 1.0%, 1.1%, and 0.9%, respectively (P < 0.01); lung metastasis rate was 0.20%, 0%, 0%, 0.27%, and 0.9%, respectively (P < 0.05). cT (tumor size), cN (lymph node), PR (progesterone receptor), and HER2 status predicted bone metastasis (P < 0.05). cT, cN, ER (estrogen receptor), PR, and HER2 status predicted liver metastasis (P < 0.05). cT, cN, and PR status predicted lung metastasis (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

These data indicate that based on clinical staging and molecular subtypes, BS, LUS and CXR are necessary for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.     

Differentiated and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma: Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE This is a review of the major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual, eighth edition, for differentiated and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. All patients younger than 55 years have stage I disease unless they have distant metastases, in which case, their disease is stage II. In patients aged 55 years or older, the presence of distant metastases confers stage IVB, while cases without distant metastases are further categorized based on the presence/absence of gross extrathyroidal extension, tumor size, and lymph node status. Patients aged 55 years or older whose tumor measures 4 cm or smaller (T1‐T2) and is confined to the thyroid (N0, NX) have stage I disease, and those whose tumor measures greater than 4 cm and is confined to the thyroid (T3a) have stage II disease regardless of lymph node status. Patients aged 55 years or older whose tumor is confined to the thyroid and measures 4 cm or smaller (T1‐T2) with any lymph node metastases present (N1a or N1b) have stage II disease. In patients who demonstrate gross extrathyroidal extension, the disease is considered stage II if only the strap muscles are grossly invaded (T3b); stage III if there is gross invasion of the subcutaneous tissue, larynx, trachea, esophagus, or recurrent laryngeal nerve (T4a); or stage IVA if there is gross invasion of the prevertebral fascia or tumor encasing the carotid artery or internal jugular vein (T4b). The same T definitions will be used for both differentiated and anaplastic thyroid cancer, but the basic premise of the anatomic stage groups will remain the same. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:55‐63. © 2017 American Cancer Society.