Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

Is the prediction of prognosis not improved by the seventh edition of the TNM classification for colorectal cancer? Analysis of the surveilla006Ece, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database

Authors: Peng Gao, Yong-xi Song, Zhen-ning Wang, Ying-ying Xu, Lin-lin Tong, Jing-xu Sun, Miao Yu, Hui-mian Xu

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Whether the 7th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system (AJCC-7) is a successful revision remains debatable. We aimed to compare the predictive capacity of the AJCC-7 for colorectal cancer with the 6th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system (AJCC-6).

Methods

The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) dataset consisting of 158,483 records was used in this study. We evaluated the predictive capacity of the two editions of the staging system using Harrell’s C index and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).

Results

There was a significant prognostic difference between patients at stage IIB and IIC (P < 0.001). Stage III patients with similar prognoses were adequately sub-grouped in the same stage according to AJCC-7. The Harrell’s C index revealed a value of 0.7692 for AJCC-7, which was significantly better than 0.7663 for AJCC-6 (P < 0.001). BIC analysis provided consistent results (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that AJCC-7 is superior to the AJCC-6 staging system in predictive capacity.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011, 61 (4): 212-236. 10.3322/caac.20121.CrossRefPubMed
2.
O’Connell JB, Maggard MA, Ko CY: Colon cancer survival rates with the New American joint committee on cancer sixth edition staging. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004, 96 (19): 1420-1425. 10.1093/jnci/djh275.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Greene FL: Current TNM staging of colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2007, 8 (7): 572-573. 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70185-7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Edge SB, American Joint Committee on Cancer: AJCC cancer staging manual. 2010, New York: Springer, 7
5.
Greene FL, American Joint Committee on Cancer., American Cancer Society: AJCC cancer staging manual. 2002, New York: Springer-Verlag, 6CrossRef
6.
Gunderson LL, Jessup JM, Sargent DJ, Greene FL, Stewart AK: Revised TN categorization for colon cancer based on national survival outcomes data. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28 (2): 264-271. 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.0952.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gunderson LL, Jessup JM, Sargent DJ, Greene FL, Stewart A: Revised tumor and node categorization for rectal cancer based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results and rectal pooled analysis outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28 (2): 256-263. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.9194.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kim KH, Yang SS, Yoon YS, Lim SB, Yu CS, Kim JC: Validation of the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis (AJCC TNM) staging in patients with stage II and stage III colorectal carcinoma: analysis of 2511 cases from a medical centre in Korea. Colorectal Dis. 2011, 13 (8): e220-e226. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02625.x.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Lan YT, Yang SH, Chang SC, Liang WY, Li AF, Wang HS, Jiang JK, Chen WS, Lin TC, Lin JK: Analysis of the seventh edition of American Joint Committee on colon cancer staging. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012, 27 (5): 657-663. 10.1007/s00384-011-1366-6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Mori T: A Comparison of the New (Planned) TNM Classification and Japanese General Rule for Staging Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Invest. 2010, 28 (4): 387-392.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Nagtegaal ID, Tot T, Jayne DG, McShane P, Nihlberg A, Marshall HC, Pahlman L, Brown JM, Guillou PJ, Quirke P: Lymph nodes, tumor deposits, and TNM: Are We getting better?. J Clin Oncol. 2011, 29 (18): 2487-2492. 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.6429.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P: Revised staging: is it really better, or Do We Not know?. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28 (23): e397-e398. 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.5726.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Nitsche U, Maak M, Schuster T, Künzli B, Langer R, Slotta-Huspenina J, Janssen K-P, Friess H, Rosenberg R: Prediction of prognosis is Not improved by the seventh and latest edition of the TNM classification for colorectal cancer in a single-center collective. Ann Surg. 2011, 254 (5): 793-801. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182369101.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB: Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996, 15 (4): 361-387. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Newson RB: Comparing the predictive powers of survival models using Harrell’s C or Somers’ D. Stata J. 2010, 10: 339-358.
16.
Volinsky CT, Raftery AE: Bayesian information criterion for censored survival models. Biometrics. 2000, 56 (1): 256-262. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00256.x.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Tong LL, Gao P, Wang ZN, Song YX, Xu YY, Sun Z, Xing CZ, Xu HM: Is the seventh edition of the UICC/AJCC TNM staging system reasonable for patients with tumor deposits in colorectal cancer?. Ann Surg. 2012, 255 (2): 208-213. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821ad8a2.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Is the prediction of prognosis not improved by the seventh edition of the TNM classification for colorectal cancer? Analysis of the surveilla006Ece, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database
Authors
Peng Gao
Yong-xi Song
Zhen-ning Wang
Ying-ying Xu
Lin-lin Tong
Jing-xu Sun
Miao Yu
Hui-mian Xu
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-123

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Cancer 1/2013 Go to the issue

Research article

Selective apoptosis induction in MCF-7 cell line by truncated minimal functional region of Apoptin

Research article

Knockdown of autophagy-related protein 5, ATG5, decreases oxidative stress and has an opposing effect on camptothecin-induced cytotoxicity in osteosarcoma cells

Research article

[18F]FDG and [18F]FLT positron emission tomography imaging following treatment with belinostat in human ovary cancer xenografts in mice

Research article

Increased risk of gastric adenocarcinoma after treatment of primary gastric diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Research article

Sugary food and beverage consumption and epithelial ovarian cancer risk: a population-based case–control study

Research article

Regional differences in prostaglandin E2 metabolism in human colorectal cancer liver metastases
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits