Tom Bradish1, H Fisher2, V Paleri3, M Robinson2, D Meikle4, C Kelly4, J O'Hara4. 1. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. Tom.bradish@nhs.net. 2. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 3. Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. 4. Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: TNM8 introduced a new staging system for HPV positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). This study aimed to investigate whether the changes made in TNM8 offer the perceived benefit in prognostication when compared to TNM7 in a specific patient population in the North East of England. METHODS: A retrospective cohort comparison study of all patients with HPV positive OPSCC (n = 106) through the Newcastle Head and Neck MDT between January 2012 to December 2014. Overall survival (OS) and Disease specific survival (DSS) data at 3 years was gathered for both TNM7 and TNM8. Log rank test was used to compare survival curves. Harrell's C-index adjusted for age and smoking status was used to assess prognostic ability of the two staging methods. RESULTS: TNM8 downstages disease (TNM7 stage IV patients n = 74, TNM8 stage IV patients n = 2) but gives a more even distribution of patients across disease stages. Survival for TNM8 stage II and III is similar. In our small cohort, the log-rank test detected differences in OS between stages for both scoring methods (TNM7 p = 0.006, TNM8 p < 0.001) and similarly for DSS (TNM7 p = 0.001, TNM8 p < 0.001). Harrell's C-index was similar for both models for OS (TNM7 0.71, TNM8 0.71) and DSS (TNM7 0.74, TNM8 0.70). CONCLUSION: TNM8 downstages disease and prognosticates well for stage I disease but does not differentiate between stage II and III disease when compared to TNM7. Further adaptation is required to address this to make TNM8 a more accurate prognostic tool.
PURPOSE: TNM8 introduced a new staging system for HPV positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). This study aimed to investigate whether the changes made in TNM8 offer the perceived benefit in prognostication when compared to TNM7 in a specific patient population in the North East of England. METHODS: A retrospective cohort comparison study of all patients with HPV positive OPSCC (n = 106) through the Newcastle Head and Neck MDT between January 2012 to December 2014. Overall survival (OS) and Disease specific survival (DSS) data at 3 years was gathered for both TNM7 and TNM8. Log rank test was used to compare survival curves. Harrell's C-index adjusted for age and smoking status was used to assess prognostic ability of the two staging methods. RESULTS: TNM8 downstages disease (TNM7 stage IV patients n = 74, TNM8 stage IV patients n = 2) but gives a more even distribution of patients across disease stages. Survival for TNM8 stage II and III is similar. In our small cohort, the log-rank test detected differences in OS between stages for both scoring methods (TNM7 p = 0.006, TNM8 p < 0.001) and similarly for DSS (TNM7 p = 0.001, TNM8 p < 0.001). Harrell's C-index was similar for both models for OS (TNM7 0.71, TNM8 0.71) and DSS (TNM7 0.74, TNM8 0.70). CONCLUSION: TNM8 downstages disease and prognosticates well for stage I disease but does not differentiate between stage II and III disease when compared to TNM7. Further adaptation is required to address this to make TNM8 a more accurate prognostic tool.
Authors: Shao Hui Huang; Wei Xu; John Waldron; Lillian Siu; Xiaowei Shen; Li Tong; Jolie Ringash; Andrew Bayley; John Kim; Andrew Hope; John Cho; Meredith Giuliani; Aaron Hansen; Jonathan Irish; Ralph Gilbert; Patrick Gullane; Bayardo Perez-Ordonez; Ilan Weinreb; Fei-Fei Liu; Brian O'Sullivan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F De Felice; T Bird; A Michaelidou; S Thavaraj; E Odell; A Sandison; G Hall; P Morgan; A Lyons; L Cascarini; A Fry; R Oakley; R Simo; J P Jeannon; M Lei; T Guerrero Urbano Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Sandro V Porceddu; Rob Milne; Elizabeth Brown; Anne Bernard; Reza Rahbari; Bena Cartmill; Matthew Foote; Margaret McGrath; Jermaine Coward; Benedict Panizza Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Brian O'Sullivan; Shao Hui Huang; Jie Su; Adam S Garden; Erich M Sturgis; Kristina Dahlstrom; Nancy Lee; Nadeem Riaz; Xin Pei; Shlomo A Koyfman; David Adelstein; Brian B Burkey; Jeppe Friborg; Claus A Kristensen; Anita B Gothelf; Frank Hoebers; Bernd Kremer; Ernst-Jan Speel; Daniel W Bowles; David Raben; Sana D Karam; Eugene Yu; Wei Xu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: I H Nauta; M M Rietbergen; A A J D van Bokhoven; E Bloemena; B I Lissenberg-Witte; D A M Heideman; R J Baatenburg de Jong; R H Brakenhoff; C R Leemans Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 32.976