BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of different TNM-based stage groupings proposed in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 300 patients with primary oral squamous cell carcinoma (T1-4, N0-2, M0). The stage grouping systems of the sixth edition of the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC), T and N Integer Score (TANIS), the Snyderman scheme, the Hart scheme, and the Berg scheme were tested for their prognostic significance. Disease free survival (DFS) was plotted by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Prognostic factors were identified through univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, all systems revealed discriminatory power for DFS; however, on multivariate analysis, only the Hart scheme predicted DFS. The TANIS did not have a better prognostic ability than the UICC stage grouping. CONCLUSION: Unlike in previous studies, the UICC stage grouping did perform worse than other TNM-based stage groupings, which may be due to the alterations made in the sixth edition.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of different TNM-based stage groupings proposed in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 300 patients with primary oral squamous cell carcinoma (T1-4, N0-2, M0). The stage grouping systems of the sixth edition of the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC), T and N Integer Score (TANIS), the Snyderman scheme, the Hart scheme, and the Berg scheme were tested for their prognostic significance. Disease free survival (DFS) was plotted by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Prognostic factors were identified through univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, all systems revealed discriminatory power for DFS; however, on multivariate analysis, only the Hart scheme predicted DFS. The TANIS did not have a better prognostic ability than the UICC stage grouping. CONCLUSION: Unlike in previous studies, the UICC stage grouping did perform worse than other TNM-based stage groupings, which may be due to the alterations made in the sixth edition.
Authors: M Amit; T C Yen; C T Liao; P Chaturvedi; J P Agarwal; L P Kowalski; Hugo F Kohler; A Ebrahimi; J R Clark; C R Cernea; S J Brandao; M Kreppel; J Zöller; M D Fliss; G Bachar; T Shpitzer; V A Bolzoni; P R Patel; S Jonnalagadda; K T Robbins; N G Iyer; T Skanthakumar; J P Shah; S G Patel; Z Gil Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: G Tirelli; S Zacchigna; F Boscolo Nata; E Quatela; R Di Lenarda; M Piovesana Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Matthias Kreppel; Sarah Danscheid; Martin Scheer; Jan Christoffer Lüers; Hans Theodor Eich; Joachim E Zöller; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Dirk Beutner Journal: Chemother Res Pract Date: 2012-09-29