Cargando…
Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study
BACKGROUND: The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) proposed a prognostic stage (PS), which included not only anatomical factors, but also biological factors. We aimed to investigate the clinicopathological significance of the PS and to compare PS and anatomical stage (AS) that has...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Japan
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567685/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32495291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01115-x |
_version_ | 1783596378184744960 |
---|---|
author | Tanaka, Ryo Yamagishi, Yoji Koiwai, Tomomi Kono, Takako Fukumura-Koga, Makiko Einama, Takahiro Yamasaki, Tamio Sato, Kimiya Ueno, Hideki Kishi, Yoji Tsuda, Hitoshi |
author_facet | Tanaka, Ryo Yamagishi, Yoji Koiwai, Tomomi Kono, Takako Fukumura-Koga, Makiko Einama, Takahiro Yamasaki, Tamio Sato, Kimiya Ueno, Hideki Kishi, Yoji Tsuda, Hitoshi |
author_sort | Tanaka, Ryo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) proposed a prognostic stage (PS), which included not only anatomical factors, but also biological factors. We aimed to investigate the clinicopathological significance of the PS and to compare PS and anatomical stage (AS) that has been established by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). METHODS: Between 2002 and 2017, 800 patients were included in the study. Patients were classified using pathological UICC AS and pathological AJCC PS. The usefulness of PS in comparison with AS was validated using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell concordance index (C-index). RESULTS: A total of 401 (50.1%) patients had pathological AS I, 324 (40.5%) had AS II, and 75 (9.4%) had AS III. Meanwhile, 535 (66.8%) had pathological PS I, 163 (20.4%) had PS II, and 102 (12.8%) had PS III. The number of AS II cases was 1.99-fold higher than that of PS II cases. For each stage, these survival curves were almost similar between AS and PS classification. Therefore, many patients to be classified into stage I and stage III were included in AS II group, while many patients to be classified into stage II were included in AS I group. To trichotomize the survival groups, PS appeared to be more specific than AS, and AIC and C-index confirmed the speculation. CONCLUSION: For the prognostication of primary breast cancer patients, AJCC PS appeared to be able to stratify the cases more appropriately than UICC AS. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12282-020-01115-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7567685 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Japan |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75676852020-10-19 Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study Tanaka, Ryo Yamagishi, Yoji Koiwai, Tomomi Kono, Takako Fukumura-Koga, Makiko Einama, Takahiro Yamasaki, Tamio Sato, Kimiya Ueno, Hideki Kishi, Yoji Tsuda, Hitoshi Breast Cancer Original Article BACKGROUND: The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) proposed a prognostic stage (PS), which included not only anatomical factors, but also biological factors. We aimed to investigate the clinicopathological significance of the PS and to compare PS and anatomical stage (AS) that has been established by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). METHODS: Between 2002 and 2017, 800 patients were included in the study. Patients were classified using pathological UICC AS and pathological AJCC PS. The usefulness of PS in comparison with AS was validated using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell concordance index (C-index). RESULTS: A total of 401 (50.1%) patients had pathological AS I, 324 (40.5%) had AS II, and 75 (9.4%) had AS III. Meanwhile, 535 (66.8%) had pathological PS I, 163 (20.4%) had PS II, and 102 (12.8%) had PS III. The number of AS II cases was 1.99-fold higher than that of PS II cases. For each stage, these survival curves were almost similar between AS and PS classification. Therefore, many patients to be classified into stage I and stage III were included in AS II group, while many patients to be classified into stage II were included in AS I group. To trichotomize the survival groups, PS appeared to be more specific than AS, and AIC and C-index confirmed the speculation. CONCLUSION: For the prognostication of primary breast cancer patients, AJCC PS appeared to be able to stratify the cases more appropriately than UICC AS. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12282-020-01115-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Japan 2020-06-03 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7567685/ /pubmed/32495291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01115-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Tanaka, Ryo Yamagishi, Yoji Koiwai, Tomomi Kono, Takako Fukumura-Koga, Makiko Einama, Takahiro Yamasaki, Tamio Sato, Kimiya Ueno, Hideki Kishi, Yoji Tsuda, Hitoshi Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study |
title | Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study |
title_full | Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study |
title_fullStr | Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study |
title_short | Comparison between AJCC 8th prognostic stage and UICC anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study |
title_sort | comparison between ajcc 8th prognostic stage and uicc anatomical stage in patients with primary breast cancer: a single institutional retrospective study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567685/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32495291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01115-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tanakaryo comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT yamagishiyoji comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT koiwaitomomi comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT konotakako comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT fukumurakogamakiko comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT einamatakahiro comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT yamasakitamio comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT satokimiya comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT uenohideki comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT kishiyoji comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy AT tsudahitoshi comparisonbetweenajcc8thprognosticstageanduiccanatomicalstageinpatientswithprimarybreastcancerasingleinstitutionalretrospectivestudy |