Literature DB >> 12923909

TNM: evolution and relation to other prognostic factors.

Leslie H Sobin1.   

Abstract

The TNM Classification describes the anatomic extent of cancer. TNM's ability to separately classify the individual tumor (T), node (N), and metastasis (M) elements and then group them into stages differs from other cancer staging classifications (e.g., Dukes), which are only concerned with summarized groups. The objectives of the TNM Classification are to aid the clinician in the planning of treatment, give some indication of prognosis, assist in the evaluation of the results of treatment, and facilitate the exchange of information. During the past 50 years, the TNM system has evolved under the influence of advances in diagnosis and treatment. Radiographic imaging (e.g., endoscopic ultrasound for the depth of invasion of esophageal and rectal tumors) has improved the accuracy of the clinical T, N, and M classifications. Advances in treatment have necessitated more detail in some T4 categories. Developments in multimodality therapy have increased the importance of the "y" symbol and the R (residual tumor) classification. New surgical techniques have resulted in the elaboration of the sentinel node (sn) symbol. The use of immunohistochemistry has resulted in the classification of isolated tumor cells and their distinction from micrometastasis. The most important challenge facing users of the TNM Classification is how it should interface with the large number of non-anatomic prognostic factors that are currently in use or under study. As non-anatomic prognostic factors become widely used, the TNM system provides an inviting foundation upon which to build a prognostic classification; however, this carries a risk that the system will be overwhelmed by a variety of prognostic data. An anatomic extent-of-disease classification is needed to aid practitioners in selecting the initial therapeutic approach, stratifying patients for therapeutic studies, evaluating non-anatomic prognostic factors at specific anatomic stages, comparing the weight of non-anatomic factors with extent of disease, and communicating the extent of disease data in a uniform manner. Methods are needed to express the overall prognosis without losing the vital anatomic content of TNM. These methods should be able to integrate multiple prognostic factors, including TNM, while permitting the TNM system to remain intact and distinct. This article discusses examples of such approaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12923909     DOI: 10.1002/ssu.10014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1098-2388


  43 in total

1.  Analysis of ECOG performance status in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients: association with sociodemographical and clinical factors, and overall survival.

Authors:  Gefter Thiago Batista Corrêa; Gabriela Alencar Bandeira; Bruna Gonçalves Cavalcanti; Francis Balduíno Guimarães Santos; João Felício Rodrigues Rodrigues Neto; André Luiz Sena Guimarães; Desirée Sant'Ana Haikal; Alfredo Maurício Batista De Paula
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  p16 (CDKN2A) SNP rs11515 was not associated with head and neck carcinoma.

Authors:  Ugo Borges Pinheiro; Carlos Alberto de Carvalho Fraga; Danilo Cangussu Mendes; Luciano Marques-Silva; Lucyana Conceição Farias; Marcela Gonçalves de Souza; Mariana Batista Soares; Kimberly Marie Jones; Sérgio Henrique Souza Santos; Alfredo Maurício Batista de Paula; Gustavo Velásquez-Meléndez; André Luiz Guimarães
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-03-15

Review 3.  Intrinsic cancer subtypes--next steps into personalized medicine.

Authors:  Cristina Santos; Rebeca Sanz-Pamplona; Ernest Nadal; Julieta Grasselli; Sonia Pernas; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Victor Moreno; Josep Tabernero; Ramon Salazar
Journal:  Cell Oncol (Dordr)       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 6.730

4.  Distant Metastases in Patients with Carcinoma of the Major Salivary Glands.

Authors:  Safina Ali; Robert Bryant; Frank L Palmer; Monica DiLorenzo; Jatin P Shah; Snehal G Patel; Ian Ganly
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Tumor micrometastases in mesorectal lymph nodes and their clinical significance in patients with rectal caner.

Authors:  Yang-Chun Zheng; Yu-Ying Tang; Zong-Guang Zhou; Li Li; Tian-Cai Wang; Yi-Ling Deng; Dai-Yun Chen; Wei-Ping Liu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Prognostication in eye cancer: the latest tumor, node, metastasis classification and beyond.

Authors:  T Kivelä; E Kujala
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Individualized outcome prognostication for patients with laryngeal cancer.

Authors:  Connor W Hoban; Lauren J Beesley; Emily L Bellile; Yilun Sun; Matthew E Spector; Gregory T Wolf; Jeremy M G Taylor; Andrew G Shuman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  HPV-16/18 detection does not affect the prognosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in younger and older patients.

Authors:  Luciano Marques-Silva; Lucyana Conceição Farias; Carlos Alberto de Carvalho Fraga; Marcos Vinícius Macedo de Oliveira; Cláudio Marcelo Cardos; Thiago Fonseca-Silva; Carolina Cavalieri Gomes; Alfredo Maurício Batista De-Paula; Ricardo Santiago Gomez; André Luiz Sena Guimarães
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 2.967

9.  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

Review 10.  Tumour volume measurement in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Vincent F H Chong
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.