Literature DB >> 11309755

TNM: principles, history, and relation to other prognostic factors.

L H Sobin1.   

Abstract

The TNM classification system describes the anatomic extent of cancer. The ability of TNM to separately classify the individual tumor (T), lymph node (N), and metastatic (M) elements and then group them into stages differs from other cancer staging classifications, which are concerned only with summarized groups. The objectives of TNM classification are to aid the clinician in the planning of treatment, to give some indication of prognosis, to assist in the evaluation of the results of treatment, and to facilitate the exchange of information. The most important challenge facing TNM is how to interface with the great numbers of nonanatomic prognostic factors that are currently in use or under study. As nonanatomic prognostic factors become widely used, TNM provides an inviting foundation upon which to build a prognostic classification; however, there is a risk that TNM will be overwhelmed by such a variety of prognostic data. An anatomic extent of disease classification is needed to select the initial therapeutic approach, stratify patients for therapeutic studies, evaluate nonanatomic prognostic factors at specific anatomic stages, compare the weight of nonanatomic factors with extent of disease, and communicate extent of disease data in a uniform manner. Methods are needed to express overall prognosis without losing the vital anatomic content of TNM. These methods should be able to integrate multiple prognostic factors, including TNM, yet permit TNM to remain intact and distinct. Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11309755     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010415)91:8+<1589::aid-cncr1170>3.0.co;2-k

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  20 in total

Review 1.  [Mutational tumor profiles beyond organ and tissue specificity: implications for diagnostics and clinical study design].

Authors:  F Klauschen
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.011

2.  Pathologic nodal evaluation improves prognostic accuracy in Merkel cell carcinoma: analysis of 5823 cases as the basis of the first consensus staging system.

Authors:  Bianca D Lemos; Barry E Storer; Jayasri G Iyer; Jerri Linn Phillips; Christopher K Bichakjian; L Christine Fang; Timothy M Johnson; Nanette J Liegeois-Kwon; Clark C Otley; Kelly G Paulson; Merrick I Ross; Siegrid S Yu; Nathalie C Zeitouni; David R Byrd; Vernon K Sondak; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Arthur J Sober; Paul Nghiem
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2010-06-19       Impact factor: 11.527

3.  Refining Prognosis in Lung Cancer: A Report on the Quality and Relevance of Clinical Prognostic Tools.

Authors:  Alyson L Mahar; Carolyn Compton; Lisa M McShane; Susan Halabi; Hisao Asamura; Ramon Rami-Porta; Patti A Groome
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 15.609

4.  Artificial neural networks for decision-making in urologic oncology.

Authors:  Theodore Anagnostou; Mesut Remzi; Bob Djavan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2003

5.  Metastatic lymph node ratio: a new staging system for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Roberto Persiani; Stefano Rausei; Vincenzo Antonacci; Alberto Biondi; Francesco Casella; Luigi Ciccoritti; Domenico D'Ugo
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Overexpression of metabolic markers HK1 and PKM2 contributes to lymphatic metastasis and adverse prognosis in Chinese gastric cancer.

Authors:  Yunshu Gao; Dongyun Xu; Guanzhen Yu; Jun Liang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2015-08-01

7.  The effectiveness of the new (7th) UICC N classification in the prognosis evaluation of gastric cancer patients: a comparative study between the 5th/6th and 7th UICC N classification.

Authors:  Sumin Chae; Anbok Lee; Joo-Ho Lee
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 7.370

8.  miR-19 in blood plasma reflects lung cancer occurrence but is not specifically associated with radon exposure.

Authors:  Olga Bulgakova; Dinara Zhabayeva; Assiya Kussainova; Alessandra Pulliero; Alberto Izzotti; Rakhmetkazhi Bersimbaev
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 9.  Clinical diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Boris Blechacz; Mina Komuta; Tania Roskams; Gregory J Gores
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 46.802

10.  An evaluation of prognostic factors and tumor staging of resected carcinoma of the esophagus.

Authors:  Bas P L Wijnhoven; Khe T C Tran; Adrian Esterman; David I Watson; Hugo W Tilanus
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.