Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 5/2018

01-05-2018 | Original Article

Evaluation of clinical staging of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (eighth edition) for prostate cancer

Authors: Wen-jun Xiao, Yu Zhu, Yao Zhu, Bo Dai, Ding-wei Ye

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 5/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) for clinical staging of prostate cancer based upon Surveillance, Epidemiology and, End Results (SEER) database.

Materials and methods

Patients diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma during 2004–2009 without any surgical treatment to the primary site were selected from the SEER registry. Excluded were cases with incomplete or unavailable staging, PSA and Gleason score information.

Results

A total of 144,443 cases were identified. The median follow-up time was 84 months. The median age at diagnosis was 69 years, and median PSA was 7 ng/ml. CSS at 10th years was 96.2% for cT2a and 86.2% for cT2b/2c, respectively. The survival differences between clinical stage cT2a and cT2b/2c still had statistical significance (P < 0.001). For patients with grade group 1, there was no statistically significant difference for CCS between the cT2a and cT1 (P = 0.310), and between the subgroup of cT1/cT2a with 10 ng/ml ≤ PSA < 20 ng/ml and the subgroup of cT2b/2c with PSA < 20 ng/ml (P = 0.126), respectively. The CSS of IIIA (T1/2 with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) was less than IIC (P < 0.001), which has worst prognosis within stage I/II. The prognosis of T1/2 stage with Gleason score grade group 5 and PSA < 20 ng/ml was not only worse than AJCC IIC (P < 0.001) but also worse than AJCC IIIB (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

It is necessary to maintain a three-tier system to subdivide T2 disease clinically. For patients with grade group 1, cT2a and cT1 could merge into one group. Organ-confined disease with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml or grade group 5 should be separated from stage II.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, McKenney JK, Sartor O, Sandler HM, Amin MB, Kattan MW, Lin DW (2017) Prostate cancer—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(3):245–253CrossRefPubMed Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, McKenney JK, Sartor O, Sandler HM, Amin MB, Kattan MW, Lin DW (2017) Prostate cancer—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(3):245–253CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Bostwick DG (1997) Staging prostate cancer–1997: current methods and limitations. Eur Urol 32(Suppl 3):2–14PubMed Bostwick DG (1997) Staging prostate cancer–1997: current methods and limitations. Eur Urol 32(Suppl 3):2–14PubMed
3.
go back to reference van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Egevad L, Delahunt B (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 24(1):16–25CrossRefPubMed van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Egevad L, Delahunt B (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 24(1):16–25CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252PubMed Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252PubMed
5.
go back to reference R DCT (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna R DCT (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
6.
go back to reference Chun FK, Briganti A, Lebeau T, Fradet V, Steuber T, Walz J, Schlomm T, Eichelberg C, Haese A, Erbersdobler A, McCormack M, Perrotte P, Graefen M, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2006) The 2002 AJCC pT2 substages confer no prognostic information on the rate of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49(2):278–279CrossRef Chun FK, Briganti A, Lebeau T, Fradet V, Steuber T, Walz J, Schlomm T, Eichelberg C, Haese A, Erbersdobler A, McCormack M, Perrotte P, Graefen M, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2006) The 2002 AJCC pT2 substages confer no prognostic information on the rate of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49(2):278–279CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Freedland SJ, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2004) Biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy in men with pathologic organ-confined disease: pT2a versus pT2b. CANCER-AM Cancer Soc 100(8):1646–1649 Freedland SJ, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2004) Biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy in men with pathologic organ-confined disease: pT2a versus pT2b. CANCER-AM Cancer Soc 100(8):1646–1649
8.
go back to reference van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, Kiemeney LA, Hulsbergen-Van DKC (2008) The prognostic role of the pathological T2 subclassification for prostate cancer in the 2002 Tumour-Nodes-Metastasis staging system. BJU Int 102(4):438–441CrossRefPubMed van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, Kiemeney LA, Hulsbergen-Van DKC (2008) The prognostic role of the pathological T2 subclassification for prostate cancer in the 2002 Tumour-Nodes-Metastasis staging system. BJU Int 102(4):438–441CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hong SK, Han BK, Chung JS, Park DS, Jeong SJ, Byun SS, Choe G, Lee SE (2008) Evaluation of pT2 subdivisions in the TNM staging system for prostate cancer. BJU Int 102(9):1092–1096CrossRefPubMed Hong SK, Han BK, Chung JS, Park DS, Jeong SJ, Byun SS, Choe G, Lee SE (2008) Evaluation of pT2 subdivisions in the TNM staging system for prostate cancer. BJU Int 102(9):1092–1096CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
go back to reference Roach MR, Waldman F, Pollack A (2009) Predictive models in external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. CANCER-AM Cancer Soc 115(13):3112–3120 Roach MR, Waldman F, Pollack A (2009) Predictive models in external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. CANCER-AM Cancer Soc 115(13):3112–3120
12.
go back to reference Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, McKenney JK, Sartor O, Sandler HM, Amin MB, Kattan MW, Lin DW (2017) Prostate cancer—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(3):245–253CrossRefPubMed Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, McKenney JK, Sartor O, Sandler HM, Amin MB, Kattan MW, Lin DW (2017) Prostate cancer—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(3):245–253CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974CrossRefPubMed D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Bastian PJ, Gonzalgo ML, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Presti JJ, Mangold LA, Humphreys E, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Freedland SJ (2006) Clinical and pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients with a preoperative Gleason sum of 8–10. CANCER-AM Cancer Soc 107(6):1265–1272 Bastian PJ, Gonzalgo ML, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Presti JJ, Mangold LA, Humphreys E, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Freedland SJ (2006) Clinical and pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients with a preoperative Gleason sum of 8–10. CANCER-AM Cancer Soc 107(6):1265–1272
15.
go back to reference Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML (2008) Mayo Clinic validation of the D’amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 179(4):1354–1360CrossRefPubMed Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML (2008) Mayo Clinic validation of the D’amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 179(4):1354–1360CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T et al (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69(3):428–435CrossRefPubMed Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T et al (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69(3):428–435CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111(5):753–760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 111(5):753–760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Tsao CK, Gray KP, Nakabayashi M, Evan C, Kantoff PW, Huang J, Galsky MD, Pomerantz M, Oh WK (2015) Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared to patients with Gleason 8 disease. J Urol 194(1):91–97CrossRefPubMed Tsao CK, Gray KP, Nakabayashi M, Evan C, Kantoff PW, Huang J, Galsky MD, Pomerantz M, Oh WK (2015) Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared to patients with Gleason 8 disease. J Urol 194(1):91–97CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Bhindi B, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Mason RJ, Gettman MT, Frank I, Tollefson MK, Lin DW, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA (2017) Independent validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Prostate Cancer Staging Classification. J Urol 198(6):1286–1294CrossRefPubMed Bhindi B, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Mason RJ, Gettman MT, Frank I, Tollefson MK, Lin DW, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA (2017) Independent validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Prostate Cancer Staging Classification. J Urol 198(6):1286–1294CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of clinical staging of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (eighth edition) for prostate cancer
Authors
Wen-jun Xiao
Yu Zhu
Yao Zhu
Bo Dai
Ding-wei Ye
Publication date
01-05-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2183-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

World Journal of Urology 5/2018 Go to the issue