Cargando…

Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value

The main change in the 5th edition (1997) of the TNM classification for gastric cancer compared to the 4th edition (1987) is the use of the number of involved nodes instead of the location of positive nodes. As a result stage grouping is also altered. A second change is the requirement for the exami...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kranenbarg, E Klein, Hermans, J, van Krieken, J H J M, van de Velde, C J H
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2001
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11139315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1548
_version_ 1782153749242839040
author Kranenbarg, E Klein
Hermans, J
van Krieken, J H J M
van de Velde, C J H
author_facet Kranenbarg, E Klein
Hermans, J
van Krieken, J H J M
van de Velde, C J H
author_sort Kranenbarg, E Klein
collection PubMed
description The main change in the 5th edition (1997) of the TNM classification for gastric cancer compared to the 4th edition (1987) is the use of the number of involved nodes instead of the location of positive nodes. As a result stage grouping is also altered. A second change is the requirement for the examination of at least 15 nodes to justify the N0 status. Patients with fewer examined negative nodes are unclassifiable (Nx). Data were retrieved from a randomized trial database comparing D1 and D2 dissection and 633 curatively operated patients were included. According to the criteria of the 5th edition, 39% of the node-positive patients had another N stage compared to the 4th: 21% had a lower and 18% had a higher stage. 5-year survival rates according to the 4th edition N0, N1 and N2 groups were respectively 72%, 34% and 27%. According to the 5th edition these percentages were for the N0, N1, N2, N3 and Nx groups respectively 75%, 38%, 19%, 8% and 65%. The former 1987 N1 and N2 group were significantly split into three new N 1997 groups (P = 0.006, respectively P< 0.0005). The Cox's regression analysis showed the N 1997 classification to be the most important prognostic variable, with a higher prognostic value than N 1987. In addition, the new TNM stage was also a better prognosticator. The requirement for examining at least 15 nodes, however, could not be fulfilled in 38% of all node-negative patients and we found that a minimum of 5 consecutive negative lymph nodes is a reliable number for staging purposes. We conclude that the 5th edition of the TNM classification provides a better estimation of prognosis, however, examination of at least 15 negative regional lymph nodes is too high a threshold and 5 gives similar prognostic value. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com
format Text
id pubmed-2363617
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2001
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-23636172009-09-10 Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value Kranenbarg, E Klein Hermans, J van Krieken, J H J M van de Velde, C J H Br J Cancer Regular Article The main change in the 5th edition (1997) of the TNM classification for gastric cancer compared to the 4th edition (1987) is the use of the number of involved nodes instead of the location of positive nodes. As a result stage grouping is also altered. A second change is the requirement for the examination of at least 15 nodes to justify the N0 status. Patients with fewer examined negative nodes are unclassifiable (Nx). Data were retrieved from a randomized trial database comparing D1 and D2 dissection and 633 curatively operated patients were included. According to the criteria of the 5th edition, 39% of the node-positive patients had another N stage compared to the 4th: 21% had a lower and 18% had a higher stage. 5-year survival rates according to the 4th edition N0, N1 and N2 groups were respectively 72%, 34% and 27%. According to the 5th edition these percentages were for the N0, N1, N2, N3 and Nx groups respectively 75%, 38%, 19%, 8% and 65%. The former 1987 N1 and N2 group were significantly split into three new N 1997 groups (P = 0.006, respectively P< 0.0005). The Cox's regression analysis showed the N 1997 classification to be the most important prognostic variable, with a higher prognostic value than N 1987. In addition, the new TNM stage was also a better prognosticator. The requirement for examining at least 15 nodes, however, could not be fulfilled in 38% of all node-negative patients and we found that a minimum of 5 consecutive negative lymph nodes is a reliable number for staging purposes. We conclude that the 5th edition of the TNM classification provides a better estimation of prognosis, however, examination of at least 15 negative regional lymph nodes is too high a threshold and 5 gives similar prognostic value. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com Nature Publishing Group 2001-01 2001-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2363617/ /pubmed/11139315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1548 Text en Copyright © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Regular Article
Kranenbarg, E Klein
Hermans, J
van Krieken, J H J M
van de Velde, C J H
Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value
title Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value
title_full Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value
title_fullStr Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value
title_short Evaluation of the 5th edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value
title_sort evaluation of the 5th edition of the tnm classification for gastric cancer: improved prognostic value
topic Regular Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11139315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1548
work_keys_str_mv AT kranenbargeklein evaluationofthe5theditionofthetnmclassificationforgastriccancerimprovedprognosticvalue
AT hermansj evaluationofthe5theditionofthetnmclassificationforgastriccancerimprovedprognosticvalue
AT vankriekenjhjm evaluationofthe5theditionofthetnmclassificationforgastriccancerimprovedprognosticvalue
AT vandeveldecjh evaluationofthe5theditionofthetnmclassificationforgastriccancerimprovedprognosticvalue