Cargando…

The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND: In October 2016 the American Joint Committee on Cancer published the early eighth edition breast cancer prognostic staging system, incorporating biomarkers into previously accepted staging. The updated and current eighth edition became effective nationwide in January 2018 after a large u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biswal, Ashley, Erler, Jacqueline, Qari, Omar, Topilow, Arthur A., Gupta, Varsha, Hossain, Mohammad A., Asif, Arif, Erler, Brian, Johnson Miller, Denise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elmer Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31143307
http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3803
_version_ 1783419102120902656
author Biswal, Ashley
Erler, Jacqueline
Qari, Omar
Topilow, Arthur A.
Gupta, Varsha
Hossain, Mohammad A.
Asif, Arif
Erler, Brian
Johnson Miller, Denise
author_facet Biswal, Ashley
Erler, Jacqueline
Qari, Omar
Topilow, Arthur A.
Gupta, Varsha
Hossain, Mohammad A.
Asif, Arif
Erler, Brian
Johnson Miller, Denise
author_sort Biswal, Ashley
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In October 2016 the American Joint Committee on Cancer published the early eighth edition breast cancer prognostic staging system, incorporating biomarkers into previously accepted staging. The updated and current eighth edition became effective nationwide in January 2018 after a large update to its staging guidelines. This study’s aim was to compare patients’ anatomic seventh edition (anatomic), early eighth (pre-update, prognostic), and current eighth (post-update, prognostic) pathological stages and to assess the utility of recent inclusions to staging criteria. Additionally, we observed how the aforementioned stage changes aligned with breast cancer histologic subtypes. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective chart review was performed. Inclusion criteria included female patients between the ages of 35 to 95 years with a diagnosis of invasive ductal or lobular carcinoma of the breast (n = 100) at three Hackensack Meridian Health hospitals. The study evaluated any trends in patients’ stage changes between the seventh edition, early eighth edition, and current eighth edition breast cancer staging guidelines. Breast cancer restaging was performed using a novel staging tool on Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Only 26% of patients’ stages changed when comparing the seventh edition stage vs. current eighth edition prognostic staging, most of which were downstaged. When comparing the seventh with early eighth edition prognostic staging, 38% of the patients’ stages changed, with a majority of them being upstaged. Lastly, 95% of total stage changes were downstages between the early eighth and current eighth edition staging guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the seventh edition vs. current eighth edition staging, few patients (especially those with early stage cancer) underwent a stage change. However, there were significant changes in stage when comparing early eighth vs. current eighth stages. Considering these changes were mostly downstages and many patients reverted to their original seventh edition stage, the current eighth edition is based on a personalized, less radical staging approach, one that is more synonymous with original seventh edition staging.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6522240
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elmer Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65222402019-05-29 The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients Biswal, Ashley Erler, Jacqueline Qari, Omar Topilow, Arthur A. Gupta, Varsha Hossain, Mohammad A. Asif, Arif Erler, Brian Johnson Miller, Denise J Clin Med Res Original Article BACKGROUND: In October 2016 the American Joint Committee on Cancer published the early eighth edition breast cancer prognostic staging system, incorporating biomarkers into previously accepted staging. The updated and current eighth edition became effective nationwide in January 2018 after a large update to its staging guidelines. This study’s aim was to compare patients’ anatomic seventh edition (anatomic), early eighth (pre-update, prognostic), and current eighth (post-update, prognostic) pathological stages and to assess the utility of recent inclusions to staging criteria. Additionally, we observed how the aforementioned stage changes aligned with breast cancer histologic subtypes. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective chart review was performed. Inclusion criteria included female patients between the ages of 35 to 95 years with a diagnosis of invasive ductal or lobular carcinoma of the breast (n = 100) at three Hackensack Meridian Health hospitals. The study evaluated any trends in patients’ stage changes between the seventh edition, early eighth edition, and current eighth edition breast cancer staging guidelines. Breast cancer restaging was performed using a novel staging tool on Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Only 26% of patients’ stages changed when comparing the seventh edition stage vs. current eighth edition prognostic staging, most of which were downstaged. When comparing the seventh with early eighth edition prognostic staging, 38% of the patients’ stages changed, with a majority of them being upstaged. Lastly, 95% of total stage changes were downstages between the early eighth and current eighth edition staging guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the seventh edition vs. current eighth edition staging, few patients (especially those with early stage cancer) underwent a stage change. However, there were significant changes in stage when comparing early eighth vs. current eighth stages. Considering these changes were mostly downstages and many patients reverted to their original seventh edition stage, the current eighth edition is based on a personalized, less radical staging approach, one that is more synonymous with original seventh edition staging. Elmer Press 2019-06 2019-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6522240/ /pubmed/31143307 http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3803 Text en Copyright 2019, Biswal et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Biswal, Ashley
Erler, Jacqueline
Qari, Omar
Topilow, Arthur A.
Gupta, Varsha
Hossain, Mohammad A.
Asif, Arif
Erler, Brian
Johnson Miller, Denise
The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients
title The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients
title_full The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients
title_fullStr The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients
title_full_unstemmed The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients
title_short The Effect of the New Eighth Edition Breast Cancer Staging System on 100 Consecutive Patients
title_sort effect of the new eighth edition breast cancer staging system on 100 consecutive patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31143307
http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3803
work_keys_str_mv AT biswalashley theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT erlerjacqueline theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT qariomar theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT topilowarthura theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT guptavarsha theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT hossainmohammada theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT asifarif theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT erlerbrian theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT johnsonmillerdenise theeffectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT biswalashley effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT erlerjacqueline effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT qariomar effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT topilowarthura effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT guptavarsha effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT hossainmohammada effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT asifarif effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT erlerbrian effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients
AT johnsonmillerdenise effectoftheneweightheditionbreastcancerstagingsystemon100consecutivepatients