鼻咽癌中国2008分期和UIOO2002及2009分期临床应用的评价

目的：评价鼻咽癌中国2008分期、UICC2002及2009分期系统对预后的预测价值,为鼻咽癌分期系统的进一步修订提供依据。方法：收集20041001—2005—10-31中山大学肿瘤医院收治的869例病理确诊初治无转移且有鼻咽颈部MR资料的鼻咽癌患者,按照鼻咽癌中国2008分期、UICC2002及2009分期系统重新进行分期,比较3种分期的情况及预后预测价值。结果：在临床分期方面,UICC2009（x^2=66．042,P〈0．001）及2002（x^2=66．582,P〈0．001）能更好地预测预后。在T分期方面,UICC2009分期对局部复发的预测价值优于UICC2002及2008分期（x^2=13．794,P=0．003）,将鼻窦、颅底骨质侵犯合并为T2后,无复发生存曲线能更好地分开;在N分期方面,3种分期各有优势。结论：UICC2009分期标准能更好地预测预后,但仍存在不足。     

鼻咽癌中国1992、2008分期和国际抗癌联盟2010分期标准的比较研究

目的 比较鼻咽癌中国1992、2008分期和国际抗癌联盟(UICC)2010分期标准之间的一致性,评价它们在预测鼻咽癌放疗疗效中的价值.方法 回顾分析2000-2005年间347例无远处转移的初治鼻咽癌患者临床资料,对每例患者分别用中国1992、2008和UICC2010分期标准进行T、N和临床分期.采用Kappa法分析3种分期标准间各期病例数分布的一致性.采用Kaplan-Meier法分别计算3种分期标准的5年总生存率、局部无复发和无远处转移生存率,并用Logrank检验其差异.结果 中国2008分期和UICC 2010分期标准之间的临床分期、T和N分期的病例构成比例的一致性均优于它们各自与1992分期之间的比较,Kappa值分别为0.700、0.881和0.722.3种分期标准下各临床分期的总生存曲线比较只发现Ⅲ与Ⅳ期间的不同,其中2008分期和UICC2010分期标准下Ⅲ与Ⅳ期间的不同(χ2=4.48,P=0.034和χ2=8.88,P=0.003),而1992分期则相似(χ2=0.40,P=0.526).3种分期标准的局部无复发生存率各T1与T2和T2与T3及T3与T4期间的比较均相似(χ2=1.85、0.53、0.50,P=0.174、0.467、0.479和χ2=1.25、2.10、1.99,P=0.264、0.148、0.159及χ2=0.77、0.60、0.87,P=0.381、0.441、0.350).在3种分期标准的各期无远处转移生存率中,1992分期标准的N0与N1、N1与N2、N2与N3间均相似(χ2=3.71、3.11、2.01,P=0.054、0.078、0.156),2008分期标准的N1与N2、N2与N3间不同(χ2=10.49、5.06,P=0.001、0.024);UICC 2010分期标准中仅N1与N2间不同(χ2=7.73,P=0.005).结论 中国2008分期和UICC2010分期标准对鼻咽癌放疗疗效的预测价值相近,且均优于1992分期.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the agreement among Chinese 1992, 2008 and UICC 2010 staging systems of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and evaluate their predictive value of radiotherapeutic prognosis.Methods 347 NPC patients without distant metastasis treated in our hospital from 2000 to 2005 were retrospectively analyzed.Every patient was categorized into T, N, and clinical stage by Chinese 1992, 2008 and UICC 2010 staging systems, respectively.Kappa value was used to evaluate the agreement among three systems.Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the 5-year overall survival (OS), local-free survival (LFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), the difference between subgroup was tested by Logrank.Results The agreement of clinical stage, T and N stage between Chinese 2008 and UICC 2010 staging system was better than that of them compared to 1992 staging system, Kappa value were 0.700、0.881 and 0.722.The agreement of T stage was better than N and clinical stage among these three staging system.The difference of OS between stageⅢ and stage Ⅳ was significant in Chinese 2008 and UICC 2010 staging system (χ2=4.48,P=0.034;χ2=8.88,P=0.003), and with no different in 1992 staging system (χ2=0.40,P=0.526).There was no significant difference of LFS between T1 and T2,T2 and T3,T3 and T4 in all staging systems (χ2=1.85,0.53,0.50,P=0.174,0.467,0.479;χ2=1.25,2.10,1.99,P=0.264,0.148,0.159;χ2=0.77,0.60,0.87, P=0.381,0.441,0.350).There were no significant differencesin 1992 staging system, while there was significant differences of DMFS between N1 and N2, N2 and N3 in 2008 stage system, N1 and N2 in UICC 2010 stage system.Conclusions The predictive value of Chinese 2008 and UICC 2010 staging system for prognosis were similar, and were better than that of 1992 staging system in NPC.     

鼻咽癌UICC第7版分期与中国2008分期比较及分期更新建议

目的 比较鼻咽癌UICC第7版分期及中国2008分期, 并对分期的更新提供参考依据。方法 回顾分析2006—2012年病理确诊的初治无远处转移、接受调强适形放疗的鼻咽癌患者767例。以OS、LRFS、DMFS为主要预后指标, 比较两种分期系统T分期、N分期、临床分期对预后的预测价值。Kaplan-Meier法计算各项生存率, 组间差异比较行Logrank检验, Cox法多因素分析。结果 从T分期来看, 中国2008分期在预测OS、LFFS方面优于UICC分期。从N分期来看, 两种分期在预测OS、DMFS方面相当。从临床分期来看, UICC分期在预测OS方面优于中国2008分期。依据统计结果推荐的新分期中T分期、N分期、临床分期对预后均有较好预测价值。结论 鼻咽癌UICC第7版分期与中国2008分期在预测预后方面各有优势。推荐的新分期方案对当前鼻咽癌分期的更新有一定价值。     

原发灶复发鼻咽癌再分期与预后的关系

[目的]探讨原发灶复发鼻咽癌的再分期与其预后的关系。[方法]对336例原发灶复发鼻咽癌患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,采用UICC（2009）分期标准进行临床分期,应用Kaplan-Meier和Log-rank法计算和比较各期患者生存率。用Cox逐步回归模型进行多因素分析。[结果]全组患者1、3、5年生存率分别为85.0%、48.0%、32.0%,其中Ⅰ期、Ⅱ期、Ⅲ期和Ⅳ期的5年生存率分别为67.7%,35.0%,30.3%和19.9%,4组生存率比较差异有显著性（χ2=26.381,P=0.000）。Cox多因素分析结果显示临床分期是影响预后的因素。[结论]UICC（2009）分期可较好预测原发灶复发鼻咽癌的预后。     

第7版UICC或AJCC鼻咽癌分期的IMRT验证研究

目的 验证第7版 UICC或AJCC 鼻咽癌分期系统在以MR为分期手段、IMRT为基础综合治疗策略下的合理性及适用性。方法 回顾分析2007—2011年间在本院经MRI分期和IMRT治疗的 720例初诊M₀期鼻咽癌患者的生存及失败情况,评价T、N分期对预测患者生存及失败的可靠性。Kaplan-Meier计算生存率,Logrank法检验差异,Cox模型多因素预后分析。结果 第7版 UICC或AJCC 鼻咽癌T分期是OS、CSS、DFS和DMFS的影响因素(P=0.013、0.025、0.001、0.002),但T₁、T₂、T₃期间相近(P=0.054~0.626)。从局部复发和远转风险来看,T₃与T₂期非常接近(P=0.796)。N分期是DFS、DMFS的影响因素(P=0.005,0.000)。但N₀和N₁期间相近(P=0.549、0.707)。在N₀—N₁期中也未发现单纯咽后淋巴结转移对OS、DFS和DMFS有影响(P=0.360、0.083、0.062)。结论 第7版UICC或AJCC鼻咽癌分期系统对经MRI分期和IMRT的鼻咽癌患者预后仍有较好预测价值,但有进一步优化的空间。     

鼻咽癌前瞻性多中心临床分期研究的初步结果

目的 通过比较鼻咽癌2008分期和第7版UICC或AJCC分期标准的病例分布和预后价值,探讨两种分期合理性。方法 分析2009—2010年全国9个肿瘤中心收治的 1508例无远处转移鼻咽癌首诊患者的临床资料,分别根据鼻咽癌2008分期与第7版UICC或AJCC分期进行分期,分析和评价两种分期病例分布的一致性及 3年LRFS、DMFS、OS率。采用Kaplan-Meier法计算LRFS、DMFS和OS率,Logrank检验差异。结果 两种分期的T期、N期、临床分期病例分布相似(Kappa=0.80、0.60、0.60),临床分期OS曲线和T分期LRFS曲线也较一致,但Ⅰ、Ⅱ期OS曲线相似,T₁—T₃期LRFS曲线出现靠拢或重叠。2008分期N₀与N₁期曲线相似,而UICC或AJCC分期N₁与N₂期曲线相似。结论 两种分期病例分布、临床分期及T分期预后相似,但N分期预后不同。两种分期中临床分期、T分期、N分期的预后需进一步完善。     

1992分期与2008分期对初治鼻咽癌患者远处转移的预测价值

目的:评价鼻咽癌1992分期和2008分期对远处转移的预测价值,为鼻咽癌分期系统的进一步修订和完善提供建议.方法:收集2004-01-01-2004-12-31中山大学肿瘤医院初治经病理学确诊无远处转移且有鼻咽和颈部MRI资料的鼻咽癌住院患者781例,比较两种分期系统各T、N及临床分期与转移的关系.结果:在T分期方面,2008分期对远处转移的预测价值优于1992分期;在N分期方面,2008和1992分期各有优势.2008分期N1a远处转移风险比(HR)及死亡风险比与N0较接近,将这部分患者归为T分期后,各N分期对远处转移的预测更合理.结论:2008分期系统在预测远处转移方面优于1992分期系统.颈部淋巴结阴性患者的咽后淋巴结归属问题值得进一步探讨.     

鼻咽癌的TNM临床分期研究进展

鼻咽癌6th UICC/AJCC分期系统的不足之处:①某些T分期之间的风险差异性不显著;②N分期触诊的淋巴结最大径不是独立的预后因素;③同一临床分期中部分各T、N组合的风险一致性不好.磁共振成像(MRI)较计算机断层扫描(CT)在显示早期病变如咽旁间隙、口咽侵犯及咽后淋巴结转移更为准确,并发现更多的深处组织病变如:颅底骨质、颅内侵犯,应作为鼻咽癌T分期的首选手段.正电子发射型计算机断层显像(PET/PET～CT)较MRI在检测颈部淋巴结转移及远处转移灶方面有明显优势.随着诊断技术和治疗手段的不断改进,分期系统也应不断完善.基于磁共振成像资料研究显示:①将6th UICC/MJCC分期系统原有T分期的4个亚组简化为3个亚组能更好地预测预后;②在N分期中删除触诊淋巴结最大径这一因素,使N分期标准的表述更简洁;③发现了颈部淋巴结转移的水平、侧数、包膜外侵犯是鼻咽癌的独立预后因素,提出了基于RTOG颈部淋巴结分区的影像学N分期标准,适应了精确放射治疗影像横断面靶区勾画的要求,并首次将包膜外侵犯和咽后淋巴结转移这些重要预后因素纳入分期系统,提高了其预测价值.     

基于MRI及IMRT下的鼻咽癌新T分期研究

目的 建立一个基于MRI并与IMRT相适应的鼻咽癌新T分期系统。方法 回顾分析2008—2010年我院基于MRI并接受IMRT的608例初治无转移鼻咽癌患者资料,按鼻咽癌第7版UICC/AJCC分期系统进行分期。Kaplan-Meier法计算相关生存率及Logrank检验,Cox法多因素分析。现行UICC/AJCC分期系统存在不足,在此基础上建立新鼻咽癌T分期系统,并对新T分期系统合理性进行评价。结果 5年随访率为94.5%,5年OS、DFS、LRFS、DMFS分别为81.5%、80.1%、86.0%、81.1%。单因素及多因素分析结果显示鼻咽、咽旁间隙、颅底解剖结构均为影响患者OS率因素(P=0.000—0.045)。根据风险差异性及生存曲线分布提出新T分期标准:T₁期:侵袭鼻咽、咽旁间隙、口咽、鼻腔、颅底、翼内肌;T₂期:侵袭翼外肌、鼻窦、眼眶、颅内、颞下窝、颅神经。推荐新T分期系统LRFS曲线及OS曲线均能很好地拉开。结论 推荐新T分期系统能较客观地预测鼻咽癌患者预后,可作为鼻咽癌临床新分期探索性的尝试。     

鼻咽癌UICC分期(1997)的临床评价

目的：评价鼻咽癌UICC（1997）分期的预后预测价值。方法：1992年8月至1993年12月,本院621例经鼻咽活检证实,治疗前均行CT或MR检查的MO鼻咽癌患者,根据UICC（1997）分期,对621例病人重新分期。放射治疗：NPDT：66-74Gy/33-37次,共7-8周;LNDT：60-70Gy/33-35次,共7-8.5周;颈部预防量：48-50Gy。结果：Ⅰ-Ⅳ期的病例分别为6.1%、43.5%、25.1%及25.3%。本组病例咽旁侵犯的发生率为74.1%,在460例咽旁侵犯的病例中,310例（67.4%)划分为T2。Ⅰ-Ⅳ期的5年生存率分别为89%、70%、53%及37%;Ⅰ-Ⅳ期的5年无瘤生存率分别为84%、69%、51%及36%。T1-4的5年无局部复发生存率分别为93%、84%、71%及58%;N1-4的5年无远处转移生存率分别为90%、81%、62%及51%。结论：UICC（1997）分期能较好的预测鼻咽癌预后,然而,病例分布不合理,Ⅱ期病人占总病例的43.5%。建立下一版UICC鼻咽癌分期进行咽旁侵犯程度的划分。     

中国鼻咽癌分期2017版(2008鼻咽癌分期修订专家共识)

准确的肿瘤临床分期是指导治疗、判断预后以及学术交流的基础。自2009年国内推广使用“鼻咽癌2008分期”以来,各肿瘤中心加强了合作和交流,促进了多中心研究和分期研究的发展。2017年7月1日,中国鼻咽癌临床分期工作委员会在福建南平召开了中国鼻咽癌分期修订工作会议,国内各位专家基于循证医学进行充分地讨论和沟通,并达成共识,一致认为采纳了鼻咽癌中国2008分期和UICC/AJCC分期第7版各自优势基础上做了更新的UICC/AJCC分期第8版较为合理,中国2008分期的修订应参照UICC/AJCC第8版分期标准,以制定国际统一的分期标准。因此,推荐新的中国鼻咽癌分期2017版与UICC/AJCC分期第8版保持一致。     

鼻咽癌UICC／AJCC分期与’92分期的研究进展

目前世界范围内广为使用的鼻咽癌分期系统主要有两个,国内采用’92分期标准．西方国家及香港等其它地区使用UICC／AJCC分期第6版。随着影像学及放疗技术的发展．这两个分期系统的局限和不足愈发明显,主要集中在咽后淋巴结的归属、咽旁间隙的地位、N分期参数的合理性、MRI对分期的影响等方面。全文分析近年来鼻咽癌分期的研究状况．以便进一步探讨分期修订的方向．     

The effectiveness of the new (7th) UICC N classification in the prognosis evaluation of gastric cancer patients: a comparative study between the 5th/6th and 7th UICC N classification

Background

The most important prognostic factor after curative surgery for gastric carcinoma is the presence of lymph node metastases. According to the 7th edition of the UICC TNM staging system for gastric cancer, N classification was categorized as N0 (no regional lymph node metastasis), N1 (1?C2 regional lymph node metastases), N2 (3?C6 regional lymph node metastases), and N3 (7 or more regional lymph node metastases). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rationality of the new UICC/AJCC N classification in comparison with the 6th UICC classification.

Methods

From August 2002 to July 2006, 295 patients with gastric cancer underwent curative resection with D2 lymph node dissection by a single surgeon. We analyzed retrospectively the significant prognostic factors and identified the suitability of the 7th UICC N staging system.

Results

According to the 7th UICC N classification, the 5-year cumulative survival rates (5-YSR) of N0, N1, N2, N3a, and N3b were 89.7, 73.6, 54.9, 23.1, and 5.4%, respectively (P?<?0.0001). Using univariate analysis, the N classification of the 7th and 6th UICC/AJCC TNM staging system, T classification of the 7th UICC TNM staging system, size and location of tumor, and histology were associated with the overall survival of gastric cancer after curative surgery. However, Cox regression multivariate analysis showed the 7th UICC N classification was an independent prognostic factor instead of the 6th UICC N classification (P?<?0.0001).

Conclusion

The 7th UICC classification for lymph node metastasis is thought to be a more reliable prognostic factor for gastric cancer than the 6th classification.     

In-depth evaluation of the AJCC/UICC 1997 staging system of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: prognostic homogeneity and proposed refinements

PURPOSE: To critically evaluate the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)/International Union Against Cancer (UICC) 1997 staging system and look back on its achievements by comparing it with the AJCC/UICC 1992 and Ho 1978 staging systems. To identify areas for additional refinement, we analyzed the prognostic heterogeneity within each stage in depth, which provided important clues for the addition or better categorization of the different defining criteria. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective review of the data from 1294 consecutive biopsy-proven nonmetastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients and staged the extent of disease according to the defining criteria of the three staging systems. All patients had undergone detailed pretreatment assessment by fiberoptic endoscopy and CT. Radical-intent radiotherapy was given using the Ho technique according to our standard protocol. RESULTS: The AJCC/UICC 1997 staging system was superior to the other two staging systems, because it assigned patients to more uniform-size stage groupings and correlated better with prognosis. Parapharyngeal space involvement was not an independent predictor for survival, local control, or metastasis. On the other hand, carotid space involvement correlated with a greater likelihood of metastasis. Prognostic heterogeneity was found. Those with orbit, cranial nerve, or intracranial involvement fared worse within Stage T4; those with a maximal lymph node size >3 cm fared worse within Stage N2; and those with bilateral lymph node metastasis fared worse within Stage N3. CONCLUSION: The prognostic accuracy of the AJCC/UICC 1997 staging system can be improved further by recategorization of the T, N, and group stage criteria.     

基于IMRT时代的第八版AJCC/UICC鼻咽癌临床分期建议

本文首次发表在Cancer,2016,122(4):546-558.

目的 准确的分期系统对癌症的治疗至关重要。随着癌症分期和治疗方法的演变,需要不断评价分期的适用性和改进性。方法 基于第7版AJCC/UICC分期回顾性分析香港和中国大陆2个肿瘤中心收治的 1609例接受调强放射治疗的首诊无转移鼻咽癌患者临床资料,所有患者治疗前均行核磁共振分期评估。结果 无其他T₃、T₄期解剖结构受侵患者中,伴有咀嚼肌间隙(翼内肌和/或翼外肌)侵犯、椎前肌侵犯及咽旁间隙侵犯的三组患者之间OS相近。伴广泛软组织(上述侵犯结构以外的软组织)受侵患者OS与伴有颅内侵犯或颅神经侵犯相似。仅2%患者锁骨上窝以上淋巴结转移者直径>6 cm,其OS率与下颈淋巴结转移者类似。用下颈(环状软骨尾侧缘水平以下)代替锁骨上窝并不影响N分期之间的风险差异性。采用推荐的T、N分期,T₄N_0-2、T_1-4N₃期OS相近。结论 经AJCC/UICC分期筹备委员会审阅后,建议第8版分期应将翼内肌/翼外肌从T₄降到T₂期,增加椎前肌为T₂期,用下颈取代锁骨上窝,将淋巴结最大直径>6 cm合并归为N₃期,将T₄、N₃期统一归为Ⅳ_A期。这些改变不仅使得相邻分期间风险差异性更好,而且使得临床实践性与全球适用性之间达到最佳平衡。     

A comparison of the Chinese 1992 and fifth-edition International Union Against Cancer staging systems for staging nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: The Chinese 1992 staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been widely adopted in mainland China since 1992. The fifth edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification defines new rules for classifying NPC. The current study compares the two in predicting NPC prognosis. METHODS: Four hundred eleven NPC patients, most of whom had disease of undifferentiated histologic type and were treated in a constant fashion and with definitive intent with radiation therapy alone, entered this comparative study. The patients were restaged according to the rules of the fifth edition of the UICC staging manual and the Chinese 1992 staging system. RESULTS: In the opinion of the authors, the predictive power of the Chinese 1992 T classification was superior. Conversely, the authors felt that the UICC N classification was more reasonable. The patients were categorized more evenly by the UICC stages than by the Chinese 1992 stages. The 5-year disease specific survival rates for patients in corresponding stages of both systems were almost identical despite differences in the criteria defining T and N classifications. Statistical analysis showed that the agreement rate was 72%. There were some agreement and correlation between the two staging systems. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems are essentially similar. Each system appears to have some subtleties that could improve the outcome prediction of the other system if the two were somehow combined. However, it appeared to the authors that the UICC system was slightly better.