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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tanaka, Ryo, Yamagishi, Yoji, Koiwai, Tomomi, Kono, Takako, Fukumura-Koga, Makiko, Einama, Takahiro, Yamasaki, Tamio, Sato, Kimiya, Ueno, Hideki, Kishi, Yoji, Tsuda, Hitoshi
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