Cargando…

Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer

SIMPLE SUMMARY: This study is the first to confirm that the clinical prognostic stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition provides a more accurate prognostication for inflammatory breast cancer than the traditional anatomic stage. It indicated that incorporating biological f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kida, Kumiko, Hess, Kenneth R., Lim, Bora, Iwase, Toshiaki, Chainitikun, Sudpreeda, Valero, Vicente, Lucci, Anthony, Le-Petross, Huong Carisa, Woodward, Wendy A., Krishnamurthy, Savitri, Hortobagyi, Gabriel N., Tripathy, Debu, Ueno, Naoto T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7690918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33114311
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12113105
_version_ 1783614178606448640
author Kida, Kumiko
Hess, Kenneth R.
Lim, Bora
Iwase, Toshiaki
Chainitikun, Sudpreeda
Valero, Vicente
Lucci, Anthony
Le-Petross, Huong Carisa
Woodward, Wendy A.
Krishnamurthy, Savitri
Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.
Tripathy, Debu
Ueno, Naoto T.
author_facet Kida, Kumiko
Hess, Kenneth R.
Lim, Bora
Iwase, Toshiaki
Chainitikun, Sudpreeda
Valero, Vicente
Lucci, Anthony
Le-Petross, Huong Carisa
Woodward, Wendy A.
Krishnamurthy, Savitri
Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.
Tripathy, Debu
Ueno, Naoto T.
author_sort Kida, Kumiko
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: This study is the first to confirm that the clinical prognostic stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition provides a more accurate prognostication for inflammatory breast cancer than the traditional anatomic stage. It indicated that incorporating biological factors into the traditional staging system provides more accurate inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) prognosis stratification than does the tumor size (T) and presence of lymph node involvement (N) and distant metastasis (M) (TNM) staging system. Our results show that the AJCC prognostic staging system is optimal for prognostication in IBC. ABSTRACT: The AJCC updated its breast cancer staging system to incorporate biological factors in the “prognostic stage”. We undertook this study to validate the prognostic and anatomic stages for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). We established two cohorts of IBC diagnosed without distant metastasis: (1) patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1991 and 2017 (MDA cohort) and (2) patients registered in the national Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015 (SEER cohort). For prognostic staging, estrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)+/ human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)+/grade 1–2 was staged as IIIA; ER+/PR−/HER2−/grade 3, ER−/PR+/HER2−/grade 3, and triple-negative cancers as IIIC; and all others as IIIB. Endpoints were breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). We studied 885 patients in the MDA cohort and 338 in the SEER cohort. In the MDA cohort, the prognostic stage showed significant predictive power for BCSS, OS, and DFS (all p < 0.0001), although the anatomic stage did not. In both cohorts, the Harrell concordance index (C index) was significantly higher in the prognostic stage than the anatomic stage for all endpoints. In conclusion, the prognostic stage provided more accurate prognostication for IBC than the anatomic stage. Our results show that the prognostic staging is applicable in IBC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7690918
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76909182020-11-27 Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer Kida, Kumiko Hess, Kenneth R. Lim, Bora Iwase, Toshiaki Chainitikun, Sudpreeda Valero, Vicente Lucci, Anthony Le-Petross, Huong Carisa Woodward, Wendy A. Krishnamurthy, Savitri Hortobagyi, Gabriel N. Tripathy, Debu Ueno, Naoto T. Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: This study is the first to confirm that the clinical prognostic stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition provides a more accurate prognostication for inflammatory breast cancer than the traditional anatomic stage. It indicated that incorporating biological factors into the traditional staging system provides more accurate inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) prognosis stratification than does the tumor size (T) and presence of lymph node involvement (N) and distant metastasis (M) (TNM) staging system. Our results show that the AJCC prognostic staging system is optimal for prognostication in IBC. ABSTRACT: The AJCC updated its breast cancer staging system to incorporate biological factors in the “prognostic stage”. We undertook this study to validate the prognostic and anatomic stages for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). We established two cohorts of IBC diagnosed without distant metastasis: (1) patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1991 and 2017 (MDA cohort) and (2) patients registered in the national Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015 (SEER cohort). For prognostic staging, estrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)+/ human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)+/grade 1–2 was staged as IIIA; ER+/PR−/HER2−/grade 3, ER−/PR+/HER2−/grade 3, and triple-negative cancers as IIIC; and all others as IIIB. Endpoints were breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). We studied 885 patients in the MDA cohort and 338 in the SEER cohort. In the MDA cohort, the prognostic stage showed significant predictive power for BCSS, OS, and DFS (all p < 0.0001), although the anatomic stage did not. In both cohorts, the Harrell concordance index (C index) was significantly higher in the prognostic stage than the anatomic stage for all endpoints. In conclusion, the prognostic stage provided more accurate prognostication for IBC than the anatomic stage. Our results show that the prognostic staging is applicable in IBC. MDPI 2020-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7690918/ /pubmed/33114311 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12113105 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kida, Kumiko
Hess, Kenneth R.
Lim, Bora
Iwase, Toshiaki
Chainitikun, Sudpreeda
Valero, Vicente
Lucci, Anthony
Le-Petross, Huong Carisa
Woodward, Wendy A.
Krishnamurthy, Savitri
Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.
Tripathy, Debu
Ueno, Naoto T.
Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer
title Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer
title_full Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer
title_fullStr Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer
title_short Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer
title_sort validation of prognostic stage and anatomic stage in the american joint committee on cancer 8th edition for inflammatory breast cancer
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7690918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33114311
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12113105
work_keys_str_mv AT kidakumiko validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT hesskennethr validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT limbora validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT iwasetoshiaki validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT chainitikunsudpreeda validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT valerovicente validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT luccianthony validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT lepetrosshuongcarisa validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT woodwardwendya validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT krishnamurthysavitri validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT hortobagyigabrieln validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT tripathydebu validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer
AT uenonaotot validationofprognosticstageandanatomicstageintheamericanjointcommitteeoncancer8theditionforinflammatorybreastcancer