OBJECTIVE: To inform the reader of the objectives of staging classification, and review history of the development of modern staging classifications in cancer. DESIGN: Review of the literature documenting the development of modern cancer staging systems with the emphasis on the history of the development of the TNM classification by the UICC and the history of the Canadian Committee on Cancer Staging. The underlying principles of the TNM system have been reviewed in the context of modern cancer practice. CONCLUSION: In the era of the multidisciplinary approach to cancer management, staging allows precision in documenting disease extent, thereby enhancing the quality of patient care. The recording of cancer stage at diagnosis is necessary to optimise patient care and provides a valuable means for recording patterns of disease presentation and monitoring advances in diagnosis and therapy. The objectives of staging described in the TNM staging system are as valid today as when implemented almost 50 years ago.
OBJECTIVE: To inform the reader of the objectives of staging classification, and review history of the development of modern staging classifications in cancer. DESIGN: Review of the literature documenting the development of modern cancer staging systems with the emphasis on the history of the development of the TNM classification by the UICC and the history of the Canadian Committee on Cancer Staging. The underlying principles of the TNM system have been reviewed in the context of modern cancer practice. CONCLUSION: In the era of the multidisciplinary approach to cancer management, staging allows precision in documenting disease extent, thereby enhancing the quality of patient care. The recording of cancer stage at diagnosis is necessary to optimise patient care and provides a valuable means for recording patterns of disease presentation and monitoring advances in diagnosis and therapy. The objectives of staging described in the TNM staging system are as valid today as when implemented almost 50 years ago.
Authors: Michael W Kattan; Kenneth R Hess; Mahul B Amin; Ying Lu; Karl G M Moons; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Phyllis A Gimotty; Justin H Guinney; Susan Halabi; Alexander J Lazar; Alyson L Mahar; Tushar Patel; Daniel J Sargent; Martin R Weiser; Carolyn Compton Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brian O'Sullivan; James Brierley; David Byrd; Fred Bosman; Sean Kehoe; Carol Kossary; Marion Piñeros; Elizabeth Van Eycken; Hannah K Weir; Mary Gospodarowicz Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Yvonne N Flores; Pamela L Davidson; Terry T Nakazono; Daisy C Carreon; Cynthia M Mojica; Roshan Bastani Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Carr J Smith; Thomas A Perfetti; A Wallace Hayes; Sir Colin Berry; James E Trosko; Judy A King; Jay I Goodman; C Glenn Begley; Anthony Dayan Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Timothy Threlfall; Jana Wittorff; Padabphet Boutdara; Jane Heyworth; Paul Katris; Harry Sheiner; Lin Fritschi Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2005-08-17