Background The incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is increasing. Although most patients achieve complete remission with surgical treatment, those with advanced disease have a poor prognosis. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) is responsible for the staging criteria for all cancers. For the past 20 years, the AJCC cancer staging manual has grouped all nonmelanoma skin cancers, including cSCC, together for the purposes of staging. However, based on new evidence, the AJCC has determined that cSCC should have a separate staging system in the 7th edition AJCC staging manual. Objective We sought to present the rationale for and characteristics of the new AJCC staging system specific to cSCC tumor characteristics (T). Methods The Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Task Force of AJCC reviewed relevant data and reached expert consensus in creating the 7th edition AJCC staging system for cSCC. Emphasis was placed on prospectively accumulated data and multivariate analyses. Concordance with head and neck cancer staging system was also achieved. Results A new AJCC cSCC T classification is presented. The T classification is determined by tumor diameter, invasion into cranial bone, and high-risk features, including anatomic location, tumor thickness and level, differentiation, and perineural invasion. Limitations The data available for analysis are still suboptimal, with limited prospective outcomes trials and few multivariate analyses. Conclusions The new AJCC staging system for cSCC incorporates tumor-specific (T) staging features and will encourage coordinated, consistent collection of data that will be the basis of improved prognostic systems in the future.

ABSTRACT؉ dopamine neurons, which constituted 2%-5% of all live cells in the culture after dissociation, could be highly enriched to >90% purity by FACS, and these isolated neurons were viable, extended neurites, and maintained a dopaminergic profile in vitro. Transplantation to 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats showed that an enriched dopaminergic population could survive and restore both amphetamine-and apomorphine-induced functions, and the grafts contained large numbers of midbrain dopamine neurons, which innervated the host striatum. STEM CELLS 2008;26:1526 -1536 Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.

Neural precursors (NPs) derived from ventral mesencephalon (VM) normally generate dopaminergic (DA) neurons in vivo but lose their potential to differentiate into DA neurons during mitogenic expansion in vitro, hampering their efficient use as a transplantable and experimental cell source. Because embryonic stem (ES) cell-derived NPs (ES NP) do not go through the same maturation process during in vitro expansion, we hypothesized that expanded ES NPs may maintain their potential to differentiate into DA neurons. To address this, we expanded NPs derived from mouse embryonic day-12.5 (E12.5) VM or ES cells and compared their developmental properties. Interestingly, expanded ES NPs fully sustain their ability to differentiate to the neuronal as well as to the DA fate. In sharp contrast, VM NPs almost completely lost their ability to become neurons and tyrosine hydroxylase-positive (TH ؉ ) neurons after expansion. Expanded ES NP-derived TH ؉ neurons coexpressed additional DA markers such as dopa decarboxylase and DAT (dopamine transporter). Furthermore, they also expressed other midbrain DA markers, including Nurr1 and Pitx3, and released significant amounts of DA. We also found that these ES NPs can be cryopreserved without losing their proliferative and developmental potential. Finally, we tested the in vivo characteristics of the expanded NPs derived from J1 ES cells with low passage number. When transplanted into the mouse striatum, the expanded NPs as well as control NPs efficiently generated DA neurons expressing mature DA markers, with approximately 10% tumor formation in both cases. We conclude that ES NPs maintain their developmental potential during in vitro expansion, whereas mouse E12.5 VM NPs do not. STEM CELLS 2006;24:1583-1593