• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.142-151
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The modification of the cancer classification system aimed to improve the classical anatomy-based tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging by considering tumor biology, which is associated with patient prognosis, because such information provides additional precision and flexibility. Materials and Methods: We previously developed an mRNA expression-based single patient classifier (SPC) algorithm that could predict the prognosis of patients with stage II/III gastric cancer. We also validated its utilization in clinical settings. The prognostic single patient classifier (pSPC) differentiates based on 3 prognostic groups (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk), and these groups were considered as independent prognostic factors along with TNM stages. We evaluated whether the modified TNM staging system based on the pSPC has a better prognostic performance than the TNM 8th edition staging system. The data of 652 patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric cancer between 2000 and 2004 were evaluated. Furthermore, 2 other cohorts (n=307 and 625) from a previous study were assessed. Thus, 1,584 patients were included in the analysis. To modify the TNM staging system, one-grade down-staging was applied to low-risk patients according to the pSPC in the TNM 8th edition staging system; for intermediate- and high-risk groups, the modified TNM and TNM 8th edition staging systems were identical. Results: Among the 1,584 patients, 187 (11.8%), 664 (41.9%), and 733 (46.3%) were classified into the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively, according to the pSPC. pSPC prognoses and survival curves of the overall population were well stratified, and the TNM stage-adjusted hazard ratios of the intermediate- and high-risk groups were 1.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.72; P<0.001) and 2.54 (95% CI, 1.84-3.50; P<0.001), respectively. Using Harrell's C-index, the prognostic performance of the modified TNM system was evaluated, and the results showed that its prognostic performance was better than that of the TNM 8th edition staging system in terms of overall survival (0.635 vs. 0.620, P<0.001). Conclusions: The pSPC-modified TNM staging is an alternative staging system for stage II/III gastric cancer.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.236-245
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The numeric N stage has replaced the topographic N stage in the current tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging in gastric carcinoma. However, the usefulness of the topographic N stage in the current TNM staging system is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the topographic N stage in the current TNM staging system. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the data of 3350 patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative gastrectomy. The anatomic regions of the metastatic lymph nodes (MLNs) were classified into 2 groups: perigastric and extra-perigastric. The prognostic value of the anatomic region was analyzed using a multivariate prognostic model with adjustments for the TNM stage. Results: In patients with lymph node metastasis, extra-perigastric metastasis demonstrated significantly worse survival than perigastric metastasis alone (5-year survival rate, 39.6% vs. 73.1%, respectively, P<0.001). Extra-perigastric metastasis demonstrated significantly worse survival within the same pN stage; the multivariate analysis indicated that extra-perigastric metastasis was an independent poor prognostic factor (hazard ratio=1.33; 95% confidence interval=1.01-1.75). The anatomic region of the MLNs improved the goodness-of-fit (likelihood ratio statistics, 4.57; P=0.033) of the prognostic model using the TNM stage. Conclusions: The anatomic region of MLNs has an independent prognostic value in the numeric N stage in the current TNM staging of gastric carcinoma.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.212-219
• /
• 2017

Purpose: The aims of this study were to compare the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manuals on tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) staging systems and to evaluate whether the 8th edition represents a better refinement of the 7th staging system, when applied for the classification of gastric cancers. Materials and Methods: A total of 5,507 gastric cancer patients, who underwent treatment from January 1989 to December 2013 at a single institute, were included. We compared patient survival rates across the disease groups classified according to the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC TNM staging systems. Results: Stage migration was observed in 6.4% (n=355) of the patients. Of these, 3.5% (n=192) and 2.9% (n=158) of patients showed a higher stage and lower stage, respectively. According to the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging criteria, the 5-year overall survival rates of the patients with stage IIIB and IIIC showed a significant difference (40.8% vs. 20.2%, P<0.001) whereas no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival rates were observed according to the 7th edition criteria (37.6% vs. 33.2%, P=0.381). Conclusions: Restaging stage III cancers according to the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM classification criteria improved survival rate discrimination, particularly, in institutes where the stage III patients were not distinctly categorized.

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.322-332
• /
• 1998

Background: Accurate staging is important to determine treatment modalities and to predict prognosis for the patients with lung cancer. The simple two-stage system of the Veteran's Administration Lung Cancer study Group has been used for staging of small cell lung cancer(SCLC) because treatment usually consists of chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. However, this system does not accurately reflect segregation of patients into homogenous prognostic groups. Therefore, a variety of new staging system have been proposed as more intensive treatments including either intensive radiotherapy or surgery enter clinical trials. We evaluate the prognostic importance of TNM staging, which has the advantage of providing a uniform detailed classification of tumor spread, in patients with SCLC. Methods: The medical records of 166 patients diagnosed with SCLC between January 1989 and December 1996 were reviewed retrospectively. The influence of TNM stage on survival was analyzed in 147 patients, among 166 patients, who had complete TNM staging data. Results: Three patients were classified in stage I / II, 15 in stage III a, 78 in stage IIIb and 48 in stage IV. Survival rate at 1 and 2 years for these patients were as follows: stage I / II, 75% and 37.5% ; stage IIIa, 46.7% and 25.0% ; stage III b, 34.3% and 11.3% ; and stage IV, 2.6% and 0%. The 2-year survival rates for 84 patients who received chemotherapy(more than 2 cycles) with or without radiotherapy were as follows: stage I / II, 37.5% ; stage rna, 31.3% ; stage IIIb 13.5% ; and stage IV 0%. Overall outcome according to TNM staging was significantly different whether or not received treatment. However, there was no significant difference between stage IIIa and stage IIIb though median survival and 2-year survival rate were higher in stage IIIa than stage IIIb. Conclusion: These results suggest that the TNM staging system may be helpful for predicting the prognosis of patients with SCLC.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.94-100
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The 7th AJCC tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging system modified the classification of the lymph node metastasis widely compared to the 6th edition. To evaluate the prognostic predictability of the new TNM staging system, we analyzed the survival rate of the gastric cancer patients assessed by the 7th staging system. Materials and Methods: Among 2,083 patients who underwent resection for gastric cancer at the department of surgery, Hanyang Medical Center from July 1992 to December 2009, This study retrospectively reviewed 5-year survival rate (5YSR) of 624 patients (TanyN3M0: 464 patients, TanyNanyM1: 160 patients) focusing on the number of metastatic lymph node and distant metastasis. We evaluated the applicability of the new staging system. Results: There were no significant differences in 5YSR between stage IIIC with more than 29 metastatic lymph nodes and stage IV (P=0.053). No significant differences were observed between stage IIIB with more than 28 metastatic lymph nodes and stage IV (P=0.093). Distinct survival differences were present between patients who were categorized as TanyN3M0 with 7 to 32 metastatic lymph nodes and stage IV. But patients with more than 33 metastatic lymph nodes did not show any significant differences compared to stage IV (P=0.055). Among patients with TanyN3M0, statistical significances were seen between patients with 7 to 30 metastatic lymph nodes and those with more than 31 metastatic lymph nodes. Conclusions: In the new staging system, modifications of N classification is mandatory to improve prognostic prediction. Further study involving a greater number of cases is required to demonstrate the most appropriate cutoffs for N classification.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.78-85
• /
• 2011

Since January of 2010, the seventh edition of UICC tumor node metastasis (TNM) Classification, which has recently been revised, has been applied to almost all cases of malignant tumors. Compared to previous editions, the merits and demerits of the current revisions were analyzed. Many revisions have been made for criteria for the classification of lymph nodes. In particular, all the cases in whom the number of lymph nodes is more than 7 were classified as N3 without being differentiated. Therefore, the coverage of the N3 was broad. Owing to this, there was no consistency in predicting the prognosis of the N3 group. By determining the positive cases to a distant metastasis as TNM stage IV, the discrepancy in the TNM stage IV compared to the sixth edition was resolved. In regard to the classification system for an esophagogastric (EG) junction carcinoma, it was declared that cases of an invasion to the EG junction should follow the classification system for esophageal cancer. A review of clinical cases reported from Asian patients suggests that it would be more appropriate to follow the previous editions of the classification system for gastric cancer. In addition, in the classification of the TNM stages in the overall cases, the discrepancy in the prognosis between the different stages and the consistency in the prognosis between the same TNM stages were achieved to a lesser extent as compared to that previously. Accordingly, further revisions are needed to develop a purposive classification method where the prognosis can be predicted specifically to each variable and the mode of the overall classification can be simplified.

• Journal of Digestive Cancer Reports
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.13-17
• /
• 2019

Stomach cancer is the fifth most common malignancy in the world. The incidence of stomach cancer is declining worldwide, however, gastric cancer still remains the third most common cause of cancer death. The tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) staging system has been frequently used as a method for cancer staging system and the most important reference in cancer treatment. In 2016, the classification of gastric cancer TNM staging was revised in the 8^th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) edition. There are several modifications in stomach cancer staging in this edition compared to the 7^th edition. First, the anatomical boundary between esophagus and stomach has been revised, therefore the definition of stomach cancer and esophageal cancer has refined. Second, N3 is separated into N3a and N3b in pathological classification. Patients with N3a and N3b revealed distinct prognosis in stomach cancer, and these results brought changes in pathological staging. Several large retrospective studies were conducted to compare staging between the 7^th and 8^th AJCC editions including prognostic value, stage grouping homogeneity, discriminatory ability, and monotonicity of gradients globally. The main objective of this review is to evaluate the clinical and pathological implications of AJCC 8^th staging classification in the stomach cancer.

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.69-82
• /
• 2019

In 2017, the American Joint Committee on Cancer announced the 8th edition of its cancer staging system. For breast cancer, the most significant change in the staging system is the incorporation of biomarkers into the anatomic staging to create prognostic stages. Different prognostic stages are assigned to tumors with the same anatomic stages according to the tumor grade, hormone receptor (estrogen receptor; progesterone receptor) status, and HER2 status. A Clinical Prognostic Stage is assigned to all patients regardless of the type of therapy used; in contrast, a Pathologic Prognosis Stage is assigned to patients in whom surgery is the initial treatment. In a few situations, low Oncotype DX recurrence scores can change the prognostic stage. The radiologists need to understand the importance of the biologic factors that can influence cancer staging.

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.21 no.12
• /
• pp.1326-1333
• /
• 2020

Objective: To evaluate urologist satisfaction on structured prostate MRI reports, including report with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging (report B) and with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score with/without TNM staging (report C, report with PI-RADS score only [report C-a] and report with PI-RADS score and TNM staging [C-b]) compared with conventional free-text report (report A). Materials and Methods: This was a prospective comparative study. Altogether, 3015 prostate MRI reports including reports A, B, C-a, and C-b were rated by 13 urologists using a 5-point Likert Scale. A questionnaire was used to assess urologist satisfaction based on the following parameters: correctness, practicality, and urologist subjectivity. Kruskal-Wallis H-test followed by Nemenyi test was used to compare urologists' satisfaction parameters for each report type. The rate of urologist-radiologist recalls for each report type was calculated. Results: Reports B and C including its subtypes had higher ratings of satisfaction than report A for overall satisfaction degree, and parameters of correctness, practicality, and subjectivity (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between report B and C (p < 0.05) in practicality score, but no statistical difference was found in overall satisfaction degree, and correctness and subjectivity scores (p > 0.05). Compared with report C-b (p > 0.05), report B and C-a (p < 0.05) showed a significant difference in overall satisfaction degree and parameters of practicality and subjectivity. In terms of correctness score, neither report C-a nor C-b had a significant difference with report B (p > 0.05). No statistical difference was found between report C-a and C-b in overall satisfaction degree and all three parameters (p > 0.05). The rate of urologist-radiologist recalls for reports A, B, C-a and C-b were 29.1%, 10.8%, 18.1% and 11.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Structured reports, either using TNM or PI-RADS are highly preferred over conventional free-text reports and lead to fewer report-related post-hoc inquiries from urologists.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.1429-1434
• /
• 2014

Background: Owing to the variability of histopathological features and biological behaviour in gastric carcinoma, a great number of categorisation methods such as classical histopathologic grading, Lauren classification, the TNM staging system and the newly presented Goseki grading method are used by pathologists and other scientists. In our study, we aimed to investigate whether Goseki grade and tumour location have an effects on survival of gastric cancer cases. Materials and Methods: Eighty-four patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were covered in the investigation. The importance of Goseki grading system and tumour location were analysed in addition to the TNM staging and other conventional prognostic parameters. Results: The median survival time in our patients was 35 months (minimum: 5, maximum: 116). According to our findings, there was no relation between survival and tumour size (p=0.192) or classical histological type (p=0.270). In contrast, the Goseki grade and tumour location significantly correlated with survival (p=0.007 and p<0.001, respectively). Additionally, tumours of the intestinal type had a longer median survival time (60.0 months) than diffuse tumours (24.0 months). Conclusions: In addition to the TNM staging system, tumour location and the Goseki grading system may be used as significant prognostic parameters in patients with gastric cancer.