Cargando…
Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system
BACKGROUND: There are few systematic evaluations regarding the sixth and seventh editions of the UICC/AJCC TNM Staging System (TNM6th, TNM7th) and Chinese 2008 Staging System (TNMc2008) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: We classified 2333 patients into intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IM...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3859943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24149175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.659 |
_version_ | 1782295474941722624 |
---|---|
author | OuYang, P-Y Su, Z Ma, X-H Mao, Y-P Liu, M-Z Xie, F-Y |
author_facet | OuYang, P-Y Su, Z Ma, X-H Mao, Y-P Liu, M-Z Xie, F-Y |
author_sort | OuYang, P-Y |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There are few systematic evaluations regarding the sixth and seventh editions of the UICC/AJCC TNM Staging System (TNM6th, TNM7th) and Chinese 2008 Staging System (TNMc2008) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: We classified 2333 patients into intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) cohort (n=941) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT) cohort (n=1392). Tumour staging defined by TNM6th, TNM7th and TNMc2008 was compared based on Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell's concordance index (c-index). RESULTS: For T-classification, TNM6th (AIC=2585.367; c-index=0.6390385) had superior prognostic value to TNM7th (AIC=2593.242; c-index=0.6226889) and TNMc2008 (AIC=2593.998; c-index=0.6237146) in the IMRT cohort, whereas TNMc2008 was superior (AIC=5999.054; c-index=0.623547) in the CRT cohort. For N-classification, TNMc2008 had the highest prognostic value in both cohorts (AIC=2577.726, c-index=0.6297874; AIC=5956.339, c-index=0.6533576). Similar results were obtained when patients were stratified by chemotherapy types, age and gender. Using staging models in the IMRT cohort, we failed to identify better stage migrations than TNM6th T-classification and TNMc2008 N-classification. We therefore proposed to combine these categories; resultantly, stage groups of the proposed staging system showed superior prognostic value over TNM6th, TNM7th and TNMc2008. CONCLUSION: TNM6th T-classification and TNMc2008 N-classification have superior prognostic value in the IMRT era. By combining them with slight modifications, TNM criteria can be unified and its prognostic value be improved. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3859943 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38599432014-12-10 Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system OuYang, P-Y Su, Z Ma, X-H Mao, Y-P Liu, M-Z Xie, F-Y Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: There are few systematic evaluations regarding the sixth and seventh editions of the UICC/AJCC TNM Staging System (TNM6th, TNM7th) and Chinese 2008 Staging System (TNMc2008) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: We classified 2333 patients into intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) cohort (n=941) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT) cohort (n=1392). Tumour staging defined by TNM6th, TNM7th and TNMc2008 was compared based on Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell's concordance index (c-index). RESULTS: For T-classification, TNM6th (AIC=2585.367; c-index=0.6390385) had superior prognostic value to TNM7th (AIC=2593.242; c-index=0.6226889) and TNMc2008 (AIC=2593.998; c-index=0.6237146) in the IMRT cohort, whereas TNMc2008 was superior (AIC=5999.054; c-index=0.623547) in the CRT cohort. For N-classification, TNMc2008 had the highest prognostic value in both cohorts (AIC=2577.726, c-index=0.6297874; AIC=5956.339, c-index=0.6533576). Similar results were obtained when patients were stratified by chemotherapy types, age and gender. Using staging models in the IMRT cohort, we failed to identify better stage migrations than TNM6th T-classification and TNMc2008 N-classification. We therefore proposed to combine these categories; resultantly, stage groups of the proposed staging system showed superior prognostic value over TNM6th, TNM7th and TNMc2008. CONCLUSION: TNM6th T-classification and TNMc2008 N-classification have superior prognostic value in the IMRT era. By combining them with slight modifications, TNM criteria can be unified and its prognostic value be improved. Nature Publishing Group 2013-12-10 2013-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3859943/ /pubmed/24149175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.659 Text en Copyright © 2013 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study OuYang, P-Y Su, Z Ma, X-H Mao, Y-P Liu, M-Z Xie, F-Y Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system |
title | Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system |
title_full | Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system |
title_fullStr | Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system |
title_short | Comparison of TNM staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system |
title_sort | comparison of tnm staging systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and proposal of a new staging system |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3859943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24149175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.659 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ouyangpy comparisonoftnmstagingsystemsfornasopharyngealcarcinomaandproposalofanewstagingsystem AT suz comparisonoftnmstagingsystemsfornasopharyngealcarcinomaandproposalofanewstagingsystem AT maxh comparisonoftnmstagingsystemsfornasopharyngealcarcinomaandproposalofanewstagingsystem AT maoyp comparisonoftnmstagingsystemsfornasopharyngealcarcinomaandproposalofanewstagingsystem AT liumz comparisonoftnmstagingsystemsfornasopharyngealcarcinomaandproposalofanewstagingsystem AT xiefy comparisonoftnmstagingsystemsfornasopharyngealcarcinomaandproposalofanewstagingsystem |