BACKGROUND: Based on review of patient data in case conferences over time, we hypothesized that clinically relevant data are omitted in routine soft tissue sarcoma staging. METHODS: We examined subsets of a prospectively collected single institution soft tissue sarcoma database with respect to criteria of the AJCC versions 6 (2002) and 7 (2010) staging systems and examined their clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Relapse-free survival decreases with increasing primary tumor size in four categories, versus two categories used in AJCC 6 and 7 staging. Disease-specific survival decreases over three categories. Conversely, omission of tumor depth as a prognostic factor in version 7 appears supported, since tumor depth is not an independent risk factor for disease-specific survival by multivariate analysis. Patients with nodal disease and no other metastases fare better than patients with other metastases, but have inferior outcomes compared with patients with large high-grade tumors without nodal metastasis. Multivariate analysis identified size, site, grade, age, nodal metastatic disease, and other metastatic disease as independent risk factors for disease-specific survival. Versions 6 and 7 criteria are tacit regarding anatomic site and histology for tumors with identical FNCLCC grade. CONCLUSIONS: Improved patient risk assessment may be achieved by staging using a larger number of size categories. Staging system refinements come at the cost of a larger number of staging categories. Histology or site-specific staging systems, nomograms or Bayesian belief networks may provide more accurate means to assess clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Based on review of patient data in case conferences over time, we hypothesized that clinically relevant data are omitted in routine soft tissue sarcoma staging. METHODS: We examined subsets of a prospectively collected single institution soft tissue sarcoma database with respect to criteria of the AJCC versions 6 (2002) and 7 (2010) staging systems and examined their clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Relapse-free survival decreases with increasing primary tumor size in four categories, versus two categories used in AJCC 6 and 7 staging. Disease-specific survival decreases over three categories. Conversely, omission of tumor depth as a prognostic factor in version 7 appears supported, since tumor depth is not an independent risk factor for disease-specific survival by multivariate analysis. Patients with nodal disease and no other metastases fare better than patients with other metastases, but have inferior outcomes compared with patients with large high-grade tumors without nodal metastasis. Multivariate analysis identified size, site, grade, age, nodal metastatic disease, and other metastatic disease as independent risk factors for disease-specific survival. Versions 6 and 7 criteria are tacit regarding anatomic site and histology for tumors with identical FNCLCC grade. CONCLUSIONS: Improved patient risk assessment may be achieved by staging using a larger number of size categories. Staging system refinements come at the cost of a larger number of staging categories. Histology or site-specific staging systems, nomograms or Bayesian belief networks may provide more accurate means to assess clinical outcomes.
Authors: C R Antonescu; S J Tschernyavsky; R Decuseara; D H Leung; J M Woodruff; M F Brennan; J A Bridge; J R Neff; J R Goldblum; M Ladanyi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: W M Crist; J R Anderson; J L Meza; C Fryer; R B Raney; F B Ruymann; J Breneman; S J Qualman; E Wiener; M Wharam; T Lobe; B Webber; H M Maurer; S S Donaldson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marc Ladanyi; Cristina R Antonescu; Denis H Leung; James M Woodruff; Akira Kawai; John H Healey; Murray F Brennan; Julia A Bridge; James R Neff; Frederic G Barr; Jeffrey D Goldsmith; John S J Brooks; John R Goldblum; Syed Z Ali; Janet Shipley; Colin S Cooper; Cyril Fisher; Björn Skytting; Olle Larsson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: H L Neville; R J Andrassy; T E Lobe; C E Bagwell; J R Anderson; R B Womer; W M Crist; E S Wiener Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Soha Riad; Anthony M Griffin; Boaz Liberman; Martin E Blackstein; Charles N Catton; Rita A Kandel; Brian O'Sullivan; Lawrence M White; Robert S Bell; Peter C Ferguson; Jay S Wunder Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: John C Byrd; Krzysztof Mrózek; Richard K Dodge; Andrew J Carroll; Colin G Edwards; Diane C Arthur; Mark J Pettenati; Shivanand R Patil; Kathleen W Rao; Michael S Watson; Prasad R K Koduru; Joseph O Moore; Richard M Stone; Robert J Mayer; Eric J Feldman; Frederick R Davey; Charles A Schiffer; Richard A Larson; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Michael C Heinrich; Christopher L Corless; George D Demetri; Charles D Blanke; Margaret von Mehren; Heikki Joensuu; Laura S McGreevey; Chang-Jie Chen; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Brian J Druker; Beate Kiese; Burton Eisenberg; Peter J Roberts; Samuel Singer; Christopher D M Fletcher; Sandra Silberman; Sasa Dimitrijevic; Jonathan A Fletcher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah B Fisher; Yi-Ju Chiang; Barry W Feig; Janice N Cormier; Kelly K Hunt; Keila E Torres; Christina L Roland Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jan C Peeken; Tatyana Goldberg; Christoph Knie; Basil Komboz; Michael Bernhofer; Francesco Pasa; Kerstin A Kessel; Pouya D Tafti; Burkhard Rost; Fridtjof Nüsslin; Andreas E Braun; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Marcus C B Tan; Murray F Brennan; Deborah Kuk; Narasimhan P Agaram; Cristina R Antonescu; Li-Xuan Qin; Nicole Moraco; Aimee M Crago; Samuel Singer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 12.969