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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |