OBJECTIVE: To find out the most applicable and consistent staging system for papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) available in the literature. BACKGROUND: The commonly used staging systems for PTC have predicted cancer-specific survival (CSS) well. However, their applicability and generalizability have not yet been evaluated in different clinical settings. METHODS: A MEDLINE search from 1965 to 2005 was carried out to identify different staging systems available in the literature and 9 systems were applicable to 1634 PTC patients within 2 tertiary-referral centers. The CSS of each staging system within individual centers were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and the CSS of each tumor stage in one individual center was compared with that of the other by log-rank test. In addition, within each center, the predictability of each staging system relative to the others was ranked based on the proportion of variation explained (PVE) value. RESULTS: Clinicopathologic features, treatment received, and tumor stages were significantly different between the 2 centers. There were also significant differences in CSS within at least one tumor stage between the 2 centers in 8 of the 9 staging systems. The TNM was a highly predictive and consistent staging system within the 2 centers. Although the absolute PVE values differed between the 2 centers, the relative ranking of the 9 staging systems within each center correlated significantly to each other (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite referral, treatment, and data collection biases inherent within each center, the TNM system remained to be the most applicable and consistent staging system for PTC in 2 centers managing the same population group.
OBJECTIVE: To find out the most applicable and consistent staging system for papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) available in the literature. BACKGROUND: The commonly used staging systems for PTC have predicted cancer-specific survival (CSS) well. However, their applicability and generalizability have not yet been evaluated in different clinical settings. METHODS: A MEDLINE search from 1965 to 2005 was carried out to identify different staging systems available in the literature and 9 systems were applicable to 1634 PTC patients within 2 tertiary-referral centers. The CSS of each staging system within individual centers were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and the CSS of each tumor stage in one individual center was compared with that of the other by log-rank test. In addition, within each center, the predictability of each staging system relative to the others was ranked based on the proportion of variation explained (PVE) value. RESULTS: Clinicopathologic features, treatment received, and tumor stages were significantly different between the 2 centers. There were also significant differences in CSS within at least one tumor stage between the 2 centers in 8 of the 9 staging systems. The TNM was a highly predictive and consistent staging system within the 2 centers. Although the absolute PVE values differed between the 2 centers, the relative ranking of the 9 staging systems within each center correlated significantly to each other (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite referral, treatment, and data collection biases inherent within each center, the TNM system remained to be the most applicable and consistent staging system for PTC in 2 centers managing the same population group.
Authors: D P Byar; S B Green; P Dor; E D Williams; J Colon; H A van Gilse; M Mayer; R J Sylvester; M van Glabbeke Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1979-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A D'Avanzo; P Ituarte; P Treseler; E Kebebew; J Wu; M Wong; Q Y Duh; A E Siperstein; O H Clark Journal: Thyroid Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Christian Passler; Gerhard Prager; Christian Scheuba; Klaus Kaserer; Georg Zettinig; Bruno Niederle Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Daniel Mankarios; Peter Baade; Pip Youl; Robin H Mortimer; Adedayo A Onitilo; Anthony Russell; Suhail A R Doi Journal: Endocrine Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Sunghwan Suh; Yun Hak Kim; Tae Sik Goh; Jin Lee; Dae Cheon Jeong; Sae-Ock Oh; Jong Chul Hong; Seong Jang Kim; In Joo Kim; Kyoungjune Pak Journal: Endocrine Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Brian Hung-Hin Lang; Cathy Po-Ching Ng; Kin Bun Au; Kai Pun Wong; Kandy K C Wong; Koon Yat Wan Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Brian Hung-Hin Lang; George C C Lee; Cathy P C Ng; Kai Pun Wong; Koon Yat Wan; Chung-Yau Lo Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Donald S A McLeod; David S Cooper; Paul W Ladenson; Kenneth B Ain; James D Brierley; Henry G Fein; Bryan R Haugen; Jacqueline Jonklaas; James Magner; Douglas S Ross; Monica C Skarulis; David L Steward; Harry R Maxon; Steven I Sherman Journal: Thyroid Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 6.568