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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |