Evaluation and Staging of Temporal Bone Tumors

Breen, Joseph T.; Gidley, Paul W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74539-8_2

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of staging is to group patients with a similar burden of disease to enable a proper comparison of their treatment outcomes. This supports the need for a generally accepted staging system, which is essential for planning treatment, predicting survival, and counseling patients 12 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Several aspects of the behavior of TBSCC are far from having been fully elucidated 13 . Several staging systems have been proposed for the purpose of stratifying patients in terms of their prognosis 14–21 but none have been universally adopted 12 . In 1990, Arriaga et al 5 published the Pittsburgh staging system, which was later revised by Moody et al, 6 and this has become the staging system most widely used in clinical practice to date 12 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Primary temporal bone squamous cell carcinoma: Comparing the prognostic value of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification (8th edition) with the revised Pittsburgh staging system

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Retrospectively considering a temporal bone squamous cell carcinomas (TBSCCs) series, our aim was to compare the predictive power of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system (8th edition) with the revised Pittsburgh staging system (rPSS) in terms of disease‐free survival (DFS), disease‐specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). Methods Forty‐three TBSCCs consecutively treated surgically were reviewed. The prognostic performance of AJCC and rPSS was compared. Results The areas under the curves for the prediction of DFS, DSS, and OS did not differ significantly between both staging systems (p = 0.518, p = 0.940, and p = 0.910, respectively). Harrel's C‐indexes for respectively the AJCC and rPSS were 0.76 and 0.70 for DFS, 0.73 and 0.76 for DSS, 0.66 and 0.63 for OS. Conclusion Comparable prognostic accuracy was observed between AJCC and rPSS. Levels of prognostic performance were only acceptable for both systems, according to Hosmer–Lemeshow scale. Further efforts are needed to define new TBSCC staging modalities with higher prognostic reliability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%