PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Background/Aims
The tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging is an useful system to assess the prognosis of any solid cancer. As new TNM staging classification of 7th stomach cancer was revised in 2009, we evaluated the prognostic predictability of the 7th International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC/AJCC) TNM classification compared to 6th UICC/AJCC TNM classification in gastric cancer.
Methods
From January 2000 to December 2009, 5-year survival rates of 266 patients with gastric cancer were calculated by the 6th and 7th UICC/AJCC TNM classification.
Results
Using the 7th UICC/AJCC TNM classification, there was no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative survival rates (5 YSR) between stage IIA and IIB, IIB and IIIA, and IIIA and IIIB (70% vs. 71%, p=0.530; 71% vs. 80%, p=0.703; 80% vs. 75%, p=0.576, respectively) though significant differences of the survival rates were observed among stages of 6th edition. Using T stage of 7th edition, 5 YSR was not different between T2 and T3 (86% vs. 82%, p=0.655). Using N stage of 7th edition, 5 YSR were not different between N1 and N2, N3a and N3b (79% vs. 81%, p=0.506; 41% vs. 17%, p=0.895, respectively).
References
1. Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Hahn S, et al. Evaluation of the seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Classification of gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with the sixth classification. Cancer. 2010; 116:5592–5598.
2. Greene FL, Sobin LH. The staging of cancer: a retrospective and prospective appraisal. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008; 58:180–190.
3. Davis PA, Sano T. The difference in gastric cancer between Japan, USA and Europe: what are the facts? what are the sug-gestions? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2001; 40:77–94.
4. Klein Kranenbarg E, Hermans J, van Krieken JH, van de Velde CJ. Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value. Br J Cancer. 2001; 84:64–71.
5. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed.New York: Springer-Verlag;2002. p. 99–106.
6. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors (UICC). 6th ed.New York: Wiley-Liss;2002.
7. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:1471–1474.
8. Ha TK, Kim HJ, Kwon SJ. Does the new UICC/AJCC TNM staging system (7th Edition) improve assessing prognosis in gastric cancer compared to the old system (6th Edition)? J Korean Gastric Cancer Assoc. 2009; 9:159–166.
9. An JY, Ha TK, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Kim S. Proposal to subclassify stage IV gastric cancer into IVA, IVB, and IVM. Arch Surg. 2009; 144:38–45.
10. Park DJ, Kong SH, Lee HJ, et al. Subclassification of pT2 gastric adenocarcinoma according to depth of invasion (pT2a vs pT2b) and lymph node status (pN). Surgery. 2007; 141:757–763.
11. Lu Y, Liu C, Zhang R, et al. Prognostic significance of subclassification of pT2 gastric cancer: a retrospective study of 847 patients. Surg Oncol. 2008; 17:317–322.
12. Kim JP, Hur YS, Yang HK. Lymph node metastasis as a significant prognostic factor in early gastric cancer: analysis of 1,136 early gastric cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 1995; 2:308–313.
13. Shen JY, Kim S, Cheong JH, et al. The impact of total retrieved lymph nodes on staging and survival of patients with pT3 gastric cancer. Cancer. 2007; 110:745–751.
14. Kennedy BJ. T N M classification for stomach cancer. Cancer. 1970; 26:971–983.
15. D'Ugo D, Pacelli F, Persiani R, et al. Impact of the latest TNM classification for gastric cancer: retrospective analysis on 94 D2 gastrectomies. World J Surg. 2002; 26:672–677.
16. Kodera Y, Yamamura Y, Shimizu Y, et al. The number of metastatic lymph nodes: a promising prognostic determinant for gastric carcinoma in the latest edition of the TNM classification. J Am Coll Surg. 1998; 187:597–603.
17. Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Hahn S, et al. Evaluation of the seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Classification of gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with the sixth classification. Cancer. 2010; 116:5592–5598.
18. Hermanek P. Prognostic factor research in oncology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52:371–374.
19. Mayer RJ. Gastrointestinal tract cancer. Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Kasper DL, editors. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 17th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill;2008. p. 573–580.
Fig. 1.
Survival rates according to depth of invasion (T) stage in 6 th (A) and 7 th (B) International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (T2 vs. T3, p=0.655). ysr, year survival rate.
Fig. 2.
Survival rate according to lymph node invasion (N) stage in 6 th (A) and 7 th (B) International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (N1 vs. N2, p=0.506; N3a vs. T3b, p=0.895). ysr, year survival rate.
Fig. 3.
Survival rate according to group (TNM) stage in 6 th (A) and 7 th (B) International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (IIA vs. IIB, p=0.530; IIB vs. IIIA, p=0.703; IIIA vs. IIIB, p=0.576). ysr, year survival rate.
Table 1.
The Comparison between 6th and 7th UICC/AJCC TNM Classification of Gastric Cancer
Table 2.
Clinical Characteristics of the Enrolled Gastric Cancer Patients
| Variables | Values |
|---|---|
| Mean age, yr (range) | 61.95 (31–89) |
| Male sex, n (%) | 185 (69.5) |
| Survival month, median (range) | 29.8 (1–115) |
| Tumor location, n (%) | |
| Proximal | 23 (8.6) |
| Middle | 97 (36.5) |
| Distal | 109 (41.0) |
| Two-thirds or more | 37 (13.9) |
| Tumor size, n (%) | |
| ≤5 cm | 169 (63.5) |
| >5 cm | 97 (36.5) |
| Histology a, n (%) | |
| Well/moderate differentiated adenocarcinoma | 115 (43.2) |
| Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma | 99 (37.2) |
| Signet ring cell carcinoma | 52 (19.6) |
Table 3.
The Comparison of Distribution between 6 th and 7 th UICC/AJCC TNM Classification
XML Download