Xingkang He1,2, Wenrui Wu3,4, Zhenghua Lin2,5, Yue Ding1,2, Jianmin Si6,7, Lei-Min Sun8,9. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University Medical School, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang, China. 2. Institute of Gastroenterology, Zhejiang University (IGZJU), Hangzhou, China. 3. State Key Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 4. Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Hangzhou, China. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Medical College, Hangzhou, China. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University Medical School, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang, China. Jianmin_si@zju.edu.cn. 7. Institute of Gastroenterology, Zhejiang University (IGZJU), Hangzhou, China. Jianmin_si@zju.edu.cn. 8. Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University Medical School, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang, China. sunlm@zju.edu.cn. 9. Institute of Gastroenterology, Zhejiang University (IGZJU), Hangzhou, China. sunlm@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to validate the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition stage system for gastric cancer in the Western world and to compare several modifications between the 7th and 8th edition systems. METHODS: Eligible patients having undergone surgical resection of gastric cancer during 2004-2011 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included in the current study. Survival differences were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank tests. The discriminative power of the AJCC 8th and 7th editions was compared by Harrell's concordance index (c-index). RESULTS: Patients with pN3a and pN3b presented distinct survival outcomes, especially for cases in which more than 15 lymph nodes were examined. The overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) c-indices for the 8th edition were largely comparable with c-indices for the 7th edition throughout the cohort. Notably, the new edition improved the power of discrimination slightly in OS and CSS (c-indices: 0.717, 0.744) compared with the 7th edition (c-indices: 0.712, 0.739) for patients for whom 15 or more lymph nodes were examined. The analysis of stage migration in the new edition revealed nonhomogeneous survival outcomes in stages IIIB and IIIC. CONCLUSION: The AJCC 8th stage system for gastric cancer performs as well as the AJCC 7th edition in the United States (USA). Importantly, when more than 15 lymph nodes are examined, the discriminatory performance of the new edition is improved.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to validate the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition stage system for gastric cancer in the Western world and to compare several modifications between the 7th and 8th edition systems. METHODS: Eligible patients having undergone surgical resection of gastric cancer during 2004-2011 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included in the current study. Survival differences were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank tests. The discriminative power of the AJCC 8th and 7th editions was compared by Harrell's concordance index (c-index). RESULTS:Patients with pN3a and pN3b presented distinct survival outcomes, especially for cases in which more than 15 lymph nodes were examined. The overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) c-indices for the 8th edition were largely comparable with c-indices for the 7th edition throughout the cohort. Notably, the new edition improved the power of discrimination slightly in OS and CSS (c-indices: 0.717, 0.744) compared with the 7th edition (c-indices: 0.712, 0.739) for patients for whom 15 or more lymph nodes were examined. The analysis of stage migration in the new edition revealed nonhomogeneous survival outcomes in stages IIIB and IIIC. CONCLUSION: The AJCC 8th stage system for gastric cancer performs as well as the AJCC 7th edition in the United States (USA). Importantly, when more than 15 lymph nodes are examined, the discriminatory performance of the new edition is improved.
Authors: K Okada; J Fujisaki; T Yoshida; H Ishikawa; T Suganuma; A Kasuga; M Omae; M Kubota; A Ishiyama; T Hirasawa; A Chino; M Inamori; Y Yamamoto; N Yamamoto; T Tsuchida; Y Tamegai; A Nakajima; E Hoshino; M Igarashi Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: J J Bonenkamp; J Hermans; M Sasako; C J van de Velde; K Welvaart; I Songun; S Meyer; J T Plukker; P Van Elk; H Obertop; D J Gouma; J J van Lanschot; C W Taat; P W de Graaf; M F von Meyenfeldt; H Tilanus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sepideh Gholami; Lucas Janson; David J Worhunsky; Thuy B Tran; Malcolm Hart Squires; Linda X Jin; Gaya Spolverato; Konstantinos I Votanopoulos; Carl Schmidt; Sharon M Weber; Mark Bloomston; Clifford S Cho; Edward A Levine; Ryan C Fields; Timothy M Pawlik; Shishir K Maithel; Bradley Efron; Jeffrey A Norton; George A Poultsides Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: M Degiuli; M Sasako; M Calgaro; M Garino; F Rebecchi; M Mineccia; D Scaglione; D Andreone; A Ponti; F Calvo Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Jeong Il Yu; Do Hoon Lim; Jeeyun Lee; Won Ki Kang; Se Hoon Park; Joon Oh Park; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Seung Tae Kim; Su Jin Lee; Sung Kim; Tae Sung Sohn; Jun Ho Lee; Ji Yeong An; Min Gew Choi; Jae Moon Bae; Heejin Yoo; Kyunga Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Fernando A V Santos; Ana P Drummond-Lage; Alberto J A Wainstein; Marco A Dias-Filho; Paulo R Savassi-Rocha; Tulio P Navarro Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 4.379