Literature DB >> 29372356

Evaluation of clinical staging of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (eighth edition) for prostate cancer.

Wen-Jun Xiao1,2, Yu Zhu1,2, Yao Zhu3,4, Bo Dai1,2, Ding-Wei Ye5,6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) for clinical staging of prostate cancer based upon Surveillance, Epidemiology and, End Results (SEER) database.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma during 2004-2009 without any surgical treatment to the primary site were selected from the SEER registry. Excluded were cases with incomplete or unavailable staging, PSA and Gleason score information.
RESULTS: A total of 144,443 cases were identified. The median follow-up time was 84 months. The median age at diagnosis was 69 years, and median PSA was 7 ng/ml. CSS at 10th years was 96.2% for cT2a and 86.2% for cT2b/2c, respectively. The survival differences between clinical stage cT2a and cT2b/2c still had statistical significance (P < 0.001). For patients with grade group 1, there was no statistically significant difference for CCS between the cT2a and cT1 (P = 0.310), and between the subgroup of cT1/cT2a with 10 ng/ml ≤ PSA < 20 ng/ml and the subgroup of cT2b/2c with PSA < 20 ng/ml (P = 0.126), respectively. The CSS of IIIA (T1/2 with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) was less than IIC (P < 0.001), which has worst prognosis within stage I/II. The prognosis of T1/2 stage with Gleason score grade group 5 and PSA < 20 ng/ml was not only worse than AJCC IIC (P < 0.001) but also worse than AJCC IIIB (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: It is necessary to maintain a three-tier system to subdivide T2 disease clinically. For patients with grade group 1, cT2a and cT1 could merge into one group. Organ-confined disease with PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml or grade group 5 should be separated from stage II.

Entities:  

Keywords:  American Joint Committee on Cancer; Cancer-specific survival; Prostate cancer; Staging

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29372356     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2183-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  17 in total

1.  Independent Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Prostate Cancer Staging Classification.

Authors:  Bimal Bhindi; R Jeffrey Karnes; Laureano J Rangel; Ross J Mason; Matthew T Gettman; Igor Frank; Matthew K Tollefson; Daniel W Lin; R Houston Thompson; Stephen A Boorjian
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  Staging prostate cancer--1997: current methods and limitations.

Authors:  D G Bostwick
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy in men with pathologic organ-confined disease: pT2a versus pT2b.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

5.  Mayo Clinic validation of the D'amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Evaluation of pT2 subdivisions in the TNM staging system for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sung Kyu Hong; Byung Kyu Han; Jae Seung Chung; Dong-Soo Park; Seong Jin Jeong; Seok-Soo Byun; Gheeyoung Choe; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  The prognostic role of the pathological T2 subclassification for prostate cancer in the 2002 Tumour-Nodes-Metastasis staging system.

Authors:  Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Dieuwertje E G Kok; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-03-11       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system.

Authors:  Phillip M Pierorazio; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 9.  Predictive models in external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mack Roach; Fred Waldman; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Michael J Zelefsky; Daniel D Sjoberg; Joel B Nelson; Lars Egevad; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Vickers; Anil V Parwani; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter Wiklund; Misop Han; Chandana A Reddy; Jay P Ciezki; Tommy Nyberg; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  1 in total

1.  The homogeneous and heterogeneous risk factors for the morbidity and prognosis of bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xu Guo; Chao Zhang; Qi Guo; Yao Xu; Guowei Feng; Lili Li; Xiuxin Han; Feng Lu; Yulin Ma; Xin Wang; Guowen Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.989

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.