Literature DB >> 22084362

Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.

Min Yi1, Elizabeth A Mittendorf, Janice N Cormier, Thomas A Buchholz, Karl Bilimoria, Aysegul A Sahin, Gabriel N Hortobagyi, Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo, Sheng Luo, Aman U Buzdar, Jaime R Crow, Henry M Kuerer, Kelly K Hunt.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging is used to determine breast cancer prognosis, yet patient survival within each stage shows wide variation. We hypothesized that differences in biology influence this variation and that addition of biologic markers to AJCC staging improves determination of prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified a cohort of 3,728 patients who underwent surgery as the first intervention between 1997 and 2006. A Cox proportional hazards model, with backward stepwise exclusion of factors and stratification on pathologic stage (PS), was used to test the significance of adding grade (G), lymphovascular invasion (L), estrogen receptor (ER) status (E), progesterone receptor (PR) status, combined ER and PR status (EP), or combined ER, PR, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status (M). We assigned values of 0 to 2 to these disease-specific survival (DSS) -associated factors and assessed six different staging systems: PS, PS + G, PS + G L, PS + G E, PS + G EP, and PS + G M. We compared 5-year DSS rates, Akaike's information criterion (AIC), and Harrell's concordance index (C-index) between systems. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data were used as the external validation cohort (n = 26,711).
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.5 years, and 5-year DSS rate was 97.4%. The PS + G E status staging system was most precise, with a low AIC (1,931.9) and the highest C-index (0.80). PS + G E status was confirmed to stratify outcomes in internal bootstrapping samples and the external validation cohort.
CONCLUSION: Our results validate an improved breast cancer staging system that incorporates grade and ER status. We recommend that biologic markers be incorporated into revised versions of the AJCC staging system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22084362      PMCID: PMC3236648          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.3174

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  36 in total

1.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index in patients with a long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution.

Authors:  G D'Eredita'; C Giardina; M Martellotta; T Natale; F Ferrarese
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Susan L Tucker; Aparna Kolli; Lisa A Newman; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Thomas A Buchholz; Aysegul A Sahin; Janice N Cormier; Aman U Buzdar; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications.

Authors:  T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-09-11       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Objective assessment of lymphatic and blood vascular invasion in lymph node-negative breast carcinoma: findings from a large case series with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Rabab A A Mohammed; Stewart G Martin; Ali M Mahmmod; R Douglas Macmillan; Andrew R Green; Emma C Paish; Ian O Ellis
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2010-12-06       Impact factor: 7.996

5.  Long term prognostic value of Nottingham histological grade and its components in early (pT1N0M0) breast carcinoma.

Authors:  S Frkovic-Grazio; M Bracko
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Multiplexed assessment of the Southwest Oncology Group-directed Intergroup Breast Cancer Trial S9313 by AQUA shows that both high and low levels of HER2 are associated with poor outcome.

Authors:  Malini Harigopal; William E Barlow; Greg Tedeschi; Peggy L Porter; I-Tien Yeh; Charles Haskell; Robert Livingston; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; George Sledge; Charles Shapiro; James N Ingle; David L Rimm; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 4.307

7.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours.

Authors:  C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-08-17       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Clinical relevance of TNM staging system according to breast cancer subtypes.

Authors:  Y H Park; S J Lee; E Y Cho; Y La Choi; J E Lee; S J Nam; J-H Yang; J H Shin; E Y Ko; B-K Han; J S Ahn; Y-H Im
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Impact of tumor grade on prognosis in pancreatic cancer: should we include grade in AJCC staging?

Authors:  Nabil Wasif; Clifford Y Ko; James Farrell; Zev Wainberg; Oscar J Hines; Howard Reber; James S Tomlinson
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 10.  Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade.

Authors:  Emad A Rakha; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Frederick Baehner; David J Dabbs; Thomas Decker; Vincenzo Eusebi; Stephen B Fox; Shu Ichihara; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Sunil R Lakhani; José Palacios; Andrea L Richardson; Stuart J Schnitt; Fernando C Schmitt; Puay-Hoon Tan; Gary M Tse; Sunil Badve; Ian O Ellis
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  33 in total

Review 1.  Postoperative radiation therapy of pT2-3N0M0 esophageal carcinoma-a review.

Authors:  Yijun Luo; Xiaoli Wang; Jinming Yu; Bin Zhang; Minghuan Li
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-09-18

Review 2.  Incorporation of clinical and biological factors improves prognostication and reflects contemporary clinical practice.

Authors:  Rashmi K Murthy; Juhee Song; Akshara S Raghavendra; Yisheng Li; Limin Hsu; Kenneth R Hess; Carlos H Barcenas; Vicente Valero; Robert W Carlson; Debu Tripathy; Gabriel N Hortobagyi
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-03-25

3.  Racial disparities in chemotherapy administration for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Angela K Green; Emeline M Aviki; Konstantina Matsoukas; Sujata Patil; Deborah Korenstein; Victoria Blinder
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  A single institution's 26-year experience with nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a validation of current staging systems and a new prognostic nomogram.

Authors:  Trevor A Ellison; Christopher L Wolfgang; Chanjuan Shi; John L Cameron; Peter Murakami; Liew Jun Mun; Aatur D Singhi; Toby C Cornish; Kelly Olino; Zina Meriden; Michael Choti; Luis A Diaz; Timothy M Pawlik; Richard D Schulick; Ralph H Hruban; Barish H Edil
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  The Neo-Bioscore Update for Staging Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Incorporation of Prognostic Biologic Factors Into Staging After Treatment.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Jose Vila; Susan L Tucker; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Benjamin D Smith; W Fraser Symmans; Aysegul A Sahin; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 6.  Inflammatory breast cancer: a proposed conceptual shift in the UICC-AJCC TNM staging system.

Authors:  Tamer M Fouad; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; James M Reuben; Anthony Lucci; Wendy A Woodward; Michael C Stauder; Bora Lim; Sarah M DeSnyder; Banu Arun; Babiera Gildy; Vicente Valero; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Incorporating Tumor Characteristics to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Breast Cancer Staging System.

Authors:  Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Christina A Clarke; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Kelly K Hunt; Sharon H Giordano
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-06-07

8.  Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Contralateral Breast Cancer Occurrence Among Older Women With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Shi-Yi Wang; Jessica B Long; Brigid K Killelea; Suzanne B Evans; Kenneth B Roberts; Andrea Silber; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Karla V Ballman; Linda M McCall; Min Yi; Aysegul A Sahin; Isabelle Bedrosian; Nora Hansen; Sheryl Gabram; Thelma Hurd; Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Using computer-extracted image phenotypes from tumors on breast magnetic resonance imaging to predict breast cancer pathologic stage.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Karen Drukker; Hui Li; Ermelinda Bonaccio; Margarita Zuley; Marie Ganott; Jose M Net; Elizabeth J Sutton; Kathleen R Brandt; Gary J Whitman; Suzanne D Conzen; Li Lan; Yuan Ji; Yitan Zhu; Carl C Jaffe; Erich P Huang; John B Freymann; Justin S Kirby; Elizabeth A Morris; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.