Literature DB >> 16369982

Inadequacies of the current American Joint Committee on cancer staging system for prostate cancer.

Sarah H Taylor1, Kelly W Merriman, Philippe E Spiess, Louis Pisters.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two major objectives of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system are to ensure appropriate treatments for patients and to determine prognosis. AJCC stage for distant prostate cancer includes patients with regional lymph node involvement. In the current study, the authors assessed whether patients with lymph node involvement and patients with distant metastasis, as determined using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) staging system, had similar treatment and survival duration and, thus, were grouped together appropriately in the AJCC system.
METHODS: In total, 4141 patients were selected from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's Tumor Registry who initially had registered at the center between January 1, 1982, and December 31, 2001, with a diagnosis of prostate cancer; had received no treatment before presentation; and had received treatment at the center. Patients with unknown stage and patients with any other primary malignancies were excluded. Descriptive analyses of demographic and disease variables were performed. Using SEER stage groups, survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Treatments differed between patients with lymph node involvement and patients with distant metastasis. The median survival was 134 months for patients with lymph node involvement and 42 months for patients with distant metastasis. When these 2 groups were combined, as in the AJCC scheme, the median survival was 86 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment and median survival of patients with lymph node involvement differed substantially from those of patients with distant metastasis. The current AJCC scheme for prostate cancer appeared to be inappropriate when considering its purpose, and the authors concluded that it should be revised. Copyright (c) 2005 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16369982     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21605

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


  6 in total

1.  PSA doubling time for prediction of [(11)C]choline PET/CT findings in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Giampiero Giovacchini; Maria Picchio; Vincenzo Scattoni; Rita Garcia Parra; Alberto Briganti; Luigi Gianolli; Francesco Montorsi; Cristina Messa
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Robotic image-guided needle interventions of the prostate.

Authors:  Pierre C Mozer; Alan W Partin; Dan Stoianovici
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2009

Review 3.  Advancements in magnetic resonance-guided robotic interventions in the prostate.

Authors:  Katarzyna J Macura; Dan Stoianovici
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-12

4.  Using nuclear morphometry to predict the need for treatment among men with low grade, low stage prostate cancer enrolled in a program of expectant management with curative intent.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Cameron Marlow; Jonathan I Epstein; M Craig Miller; Patricia Landis; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Robert W Veltri
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 5.  Diagnosis of prostate cancer via nanotechnological approach.

Authors:  Benedict J Kang; Minhong Jeun; Gun Hyuk Jang; Sang Hoon Song; In Gab Jeong; Choung-Soo Kim; Peter C Searson; Kwan Hyi Lee
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2015-10-19

6.  Potential overtreatment among men aged 80 years and older with localized prostate cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Masaoka; Hidemi Ito; Akira Yokomizo; Masatoshi Eto; Keitaro Matsuo
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 6.716

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.