Literature DB >> 32864840

Modified ypTNM Staging Classification for Gastric Cancer after Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Multi-Institutional Study.

Qing Zhong1,2, Qi-Yue Chen1,2, Amilcare Parisi3, Yu-Bin Ma4, Guang-Tan Lin1,2, Jacopo Desiderio3, Su Yan4, Jian-Wei Xie1,2, Jia-Bin Wang1,2, Jun-Fang Hou4, Jian-Xian Lin1,2, Jun Lu1,2, Long-Long Cao1,2, Mi Lin1,2, Ru-Hong Tu1,2, Ze-Ning Huang1,2, Ju-Li Lin1,2, Zhi-Yu Liu1,2, Si-Jin Que1,2, Ping Li1,2, Chao-Hui Zheng1,2, Chang-Ming Huang1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefits of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (GC) are increasingly recognized. The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual first proposed ypTNM staging, but its accuracy is controversial. This study aims to develop a modified ypTNM staging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinicopathological data of 1,791 patients who underwent curative-intent gastrectomy after neoadjuvant therapy in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, as the development cohort, were retrospectively analyzed. Modified ypTNM staging was established based on overall survival (OS). We compared the prognostic performance of the AJCC 8th edition ypTNM staging and the modified staging for patients after neoadjuvant therapy.
RESULTS: In the development cohort, the 5-year OS for AJCC stages I, II, and III was 58.8%, 39.1%, and 21.6%, respectively, compared with 69.9%, 54.4%, 34.4%, 24.1%, and 13.6% for modified ypTNM stages IA, IB, II, IIIA, and IIIB. The modified staging had better discriminatory ability (C-index: 0.620 vs. 0.589, p < .001), predictive homogeneity (likelihood ratio chi-square: 140.71 vs. 218.66, p < .001), predictive accuracy (mean difference in Bayesian information criterion: 64.94; net reclassification index: 35.54%; integrated discrimination improvement index: 0.032; all p < .001), and model stability (time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curves) over AJCC. Decision curve analysis showed that the modified staging achieved a better net benefit than AJCC. In external validation (n = 266), the modified ypTNM staging had superior prognostic predictive power (all p < .05).
CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a modified ypTNM staging through multicenter data that is superior to the AJCC 8th edition ypTNM staging, allowing more accurate assessment of the prognosis of patients with GC after neoadjuvant therapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual first proposed ypTNM staging, but its accuracy is controversial. Based on multi-institutional data, this study developed a modified ypTNM staging, which is superior to the AJCC 8th edition ypTNM staging, allowing more accurate assessment of the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.
© 2020 AlphaMed Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastric cancer; Modified; Neoadjuvant therapy; Validation; ypTNM staging

Year:  2020        PMID: 32864840      PMCID: PMC7794192          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  33 in total

1.  Is the new seventh AJCC/UICC staging system appropriate for patients with gastric cancer?

Authors:  Hong Man Yoon; Keun Won Ryu; Byung Ho Nam; Soo Jeong Cho; Sook Ryun Park; Jong Yeul Lee; Jun Ho Lee; Myeong-Cherl Kook; Il Ju Choi; Young-Woo Kim
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 2.  Neoadjuvant therapy for gastric cancer: current evidence and future directions.

Authors:  Andrew D Newton; Jashodeep Datta; Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla; Giorgos C Karakousis; Robert E Roses
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-10

3.  Significance of histopathological tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric adenocarcinomas: a summary of 480 cases.

Authors:  Karen Becker; Rupert Langer; Daniel Reim; Alexander Novotny; Christian Meyer zum Buschenfelde; Jutta Engel; Helmut Friess; Heinz Hofler
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 4.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

Authors:  F E Harrell; K L Lee; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Evaluating the yield of medical tests.

Authors:  F E Harrell; R M Califf; D B Pryor; K L Lee; R A Rosati
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  A novel subclassification of pT2 gastric cancers according to the depth of muscularis propria invasion: superficial muscularis propria versus deep muscularis propria/subserosa.

Authors:  Zhe Sun; Guo-Lian Zhu; Chong Lu; Peng-Tao Guo; Bao-Jun Huang; Kai Li; Yan Xu; Zhen-Ning Wang; Hui-Mian Xu
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4).

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 7.370

9.  Effect of Pathologic Tumor Response and Nodal Status on Survival in the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy Trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Smyth; Matteo Fassan; David Cunningham; William H Allum; Alicia F C Okines; Andrea Lampis; Jens C Hahne; Massimo Rugge; Clare Peckitt; Matthew Nankivell; Ruth Langley; Michele Ghidini; Chiara Braconi; Andrew Wotherspoon; Heike I Grabsch; Nicola Valeri
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer.

Authors:  Shen-Bao Hu; Chun-Hao Liu; Xiang Wang; Yun-Wei Dong; Lin Zhao; Hong-Feng Liu; Yue Cao; Ding-Rong Zhong; Wei Liu; Yan-Long Li; Wei-Sheng Gao; Chun-Mei Bai; Zhong-Hua Shang; Xiao-Yi Li
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 2.754

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Revisiting the 8th AJCC system for gastric cancer: A review on validations, nomograms, lymph nodes impact, and proposed modifications.

Authors:  Geofrey Mahiki Mranda; Ying Xue; Xing-Guo Zhou; Wang Yu; Tian Wei; Zhi-Ping Xiang; Jun-Jian Liu; Yin-Lu Ding
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2022-02-25

2.  Comparisons of prognosis prediction accuracy between modified and unmodified versions of 8th edition ypTNM.

Authors:  Yuequan Jiang; Yu Huang; Zhiqiang Wang; Wei Xu; Jian Xu; Fei Teng; Zhe Yin; Raja M Flores; Noriyuki Hirahara; Sofoklis Mitsos; Connor J Wakefield; Dongming Guo; Renmei Yang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-05
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.