Literature DB >> 17643602

Proposed modification of nodal status in AJCC esophageal cancer staging system.

Wayne Hofstetter1, Arlene M Correa, Neby Bekele, Jaffer A Ajani, Alexandria Phan, Ritsuko R Komaki, Zhongxing Liao, Dipen Maru, Tsung T Wu, Reza J Mehran, David C Rice, Jack A Roth, Ara A Vaporciyan, Garrett L Walsh, Ashleigh Francis, Shanda Blackmon, Stephen G Swisher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) esophageal cancer staging for nodal status is difficult to interpret and is based solely on lymph node location relative to the primary tumor's esophageal location. Recent reports suggest that the number of lymph nodes involved is also an important factor. We reviewed our esophageal experience to propose an improved nodal staging system.
METHODS: In all, 1,027 patients with resected esophageal cancer from 1970 to 2005 were reviewed. Lymph nodes stations were assigned according to AJCC criteria. Overall survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The impact of location, number of involved lymph nodes, and use of preoperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy, or both, was assessed.
RESULTS: Nonregional nodal involvement (n = 17) was associated with decreased survival compared with regional (n = 441) or celiac nodal (n = 73) involvement (3-year: 0% versus 24% and 23%; p < 0.001). The number of involved lymph nodes was strongly associated with survival (3-year: 0 nodes = 63%, 1 to 3 nodes = 31%, more than 3 nodes = 13%; p < 0.001), and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis suggested that the location and number of involved lymph nodes were independent predictors of survival (p < 0.001). We propose a modified nodal staging system that designates celiac nodes as regional and includes number of involved nodes: pN0, no nodes (3 years = 63%, n = 496); pN1-regional, 1 to 3 nodes (3 years = 32%, n = 292); pN2-regional, more than 3 nodes (3 years = 14%, n = 222); pN3-nonregional node (3 years = 0%, n = 17 [p < 0.0001]). This modified nodal staging system better predicts survival than the current AJCC nodal staging system in which survival for pN1 (3 years = 24%) and pM1a (3 years = 23%) do not differ (p = 0.67). The use of induction before surgical resection did not alter the predictive effect of the new nodal staging system.
CONCLUSIONS: Modification of the AJCC nodal classification system to incorporate the number of involved lymph nodes with regional and nonregional node location simplifies and better predicts long-term survival than does the current AJCC nodal system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17643602     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.01.067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  26 in total

1.  Prognostic significance of endoluminal ultrasound-defined disease length and tumor volume (EDTV) for patients with the diagnosis of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Christopher P Twine; S Ashley Roberts; Wyn G Lewis; B Vicki Dave; Claire E Rawlinson; David Chan; Mark Robinson; Tom D Crosby
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  The significance of lymph node status as a prognostic factor for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Yasunori Akutsu; Hisahiro Matsubara
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 3.  Pathology of esophageal cancer and Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Shilpa Jain; Sadhna Dhingra
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-03

4.  The revised American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition) improves prognostic stratification after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Haris Zahoor; James D Luketich; Benny Weksler; Daniel G Winger; Neil A Christie; Ryan M Levy; Michael K Gibson; Jon M Davison; Katie S Nason
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Evaluation of dysphagia and diminished airway protection after three-field esophagectomy and a remedy.

Authors:  Takushi Yasuda; Masahiko Yano; Hiroshi Miyata; Makoto Yamasaki; Shuji Takiguchi; Yoshiyuki Fujiwara; Yuichiro Doki
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  The N-classification for esophageal cancer staging: should it be based on number, distance, or extent of the lymph node metastasis?

Authors:  Qi-Rong Xu; Xue-Peng Zhuge; He-Lin Zhang; Yu-Min Ping; Long-Qi Chen
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  The MR radiomic signature can predict preoperative lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Jinrong Qu; Chen Shen; Jianjun Qin; Zhaoqi Wang; Zhenyu Liu; Jia Guo; Hongkai Zhang; Pengrui Gao; Tianxia Bei; Yingshu Wang; Hui Liu; Ihab R Kamel; Jie Tian; Hailiang Li
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Aine Sakurada; Taro Takahara; Thomas C Kwee; Tomohiro Yamashita; Seiji Nasu; Tomohiko Horie; Marc Van Cauteren; Yutaka Imai
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Yasunori Akutsu; Hisahiro Matsubara
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-03-26

10.  Application of the revised lung cancer staging system (IASLC Staging Project) to a cancer center population.

Authors:  Edmund S Kassis; Ara A Vaporciyan; Stephen G Swisher; Arlene M Correa; B Nebiyou Bekele; Jeremy J Erasmus; Wayne L Hofstetter; Ritsuko Komaki; Reza J Mehran; Cesar A Moran; Katherine M Pisters; David C Rice; Garrett L Walsh; Jack A Roth
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 5.209

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.