Comparison of the sixth, seventh, and eighth editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system for gastric cancer

Chen, Mei-Wen; Yen, Hsu‐Heng

doi:10.1097/md.0000000000027358

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A higher Harrell's C-index value, log-rank test, or linear trend chi-square test defined a better discriminative ability and monotonicity. In contrast, smaller AIC values were preferred for improved prognostic separation [ [19] , [20] , [21] ].…”

Section: Validation Of the 8th Ajcc Tnm Staging Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the 8th AJCC system for gastric cancer: A review on validations, nomograms, lymph nodes impact, and proposed modifications

Mranda

Xiang

Zhou

et al. 2022

Annals of Medicine &Amp; Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Validation Of the 8th Ajcc Tnm Staging Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the 8th AJCC system for gastric cancer: A review on validations, nomograms, lymph nodes impact, and proposed modifications

Mranda

Xiang

Zhou

et al. 2022

Annals of Medicine &Amp; Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of the TNM9th and 8th editions for localized and locally advanced anal squamous cell carcinoma treated nonsurgically and proposal of a new stage grouping system

Zheng,

Wang,

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare the survival discrimination of the TNM9th and 8th editions for localized and locally advanced anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) treated nonsurgically and suggest a simple revised staging system with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.MethodsOverall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Survival comparisons between the T and N stages and the different staging systems were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and log‐rank test, followed by correlation analysis and variable importance analysis (VIA). Additionally, multivariate analysis was employed to identify significant predictors, which were further visualized using a nomogram. Finally, calibration curve, C‐index, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were applied to assess the performance of the different staging systems.ResultsA total of 5384 patients with ASCC were analyzed, revealing superior discrimination OS by the TNM9th edition compared to that by the TNM8th edition. Multivariate analysis identified the T and N stages as significant OS predictors (all p < 0.001). However, ambiguity persisted in stage III subgroups within the TNM9th edition, showing OS times of 102 months for stage IIIA disease, 88 months for stage IIIB disease, and 128 months for stage IIIC disease (all p > 0.05). Correlation analysis demonstrated an increased correlation for the T stage between the TNM8th and 9th editions (ρ value from 0.7 to 0.89), while the N stage correlation decreased (ρ value from 0.84 to 0.56). VIA and the prognostic nomogram highlighted the greater importance of the T stage over the N stage. Based on these findings, a new staging system was developed, and its clinical utility was confirmed through calibration curves, C‐index values (from 0.598 to 0.604), and DCAs.ConclusionsOur new staging system exhibited slightly better prognostic value compared to the TNM9th staging systems for nonmetastatic ASCC and warrants further validation.

show abstract

Differences of survival benefits brought by various treatments in ovarian cancer patients with different tumor stages

Zhang

2023

J Ovarian Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The current study aimed to explore the prognosis of ovarian cancer patients in different subgroup using three prognostic research indexes. The current study aimed to build a prognostic model for ovarian cancer patients. Methods The study dataset was downloaded from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. Accelerated Failure Time algorithm was used to construct a prognostic model for ovary cancer. Results The mortality rate in the model group was 51.6% (9,314/18,056), while the mortality rate in the validation group was 52.1% (6,358/12,199). The current study constructed a prognostic model for ovarian cancer patients. The C indexes were 0.741 (95% confidence interval: 0.731–0.751) in model dataset and 0.738 (95% confidence interval: 0.726–0.750) in validation dataset. Brier score was 0.179 for model dataset and validation dataset. The C indexes were 0.741 (95% confidence interval: 0.733–0.749) in bootstrap internal validation dataset. Brier score was 0.178 for bootstrap internal validation dataset. Conclusion The current research indicated that there were significant differences in the survival benefits of treatments among ovarian cancer patients with different stages. The current research developed an individual mortality risk predictive system that could provide valuable predictive information for ovarian cancer patients. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Comparison of the sixth, seventh, and eighth editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system for gastric cancer

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Revisiting the 8th AJCC system for gastric cancer: A review on validations, nomograms, lymph nodes impact, and proposed modifications

Revisiting the 8th AJCC system for gastric cancer: A review on validations, nomograms, lymph nodes impact, and proposed modifications

Comparison of the TNM9th and 8th editions for localized and locally advanced anal squamous cell carcinoma treated nonsurgically and proposal of a new stage grouping system

Differences of survival benefits brought by various treatments in ovarian cancer patients with different tumor stages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About