Research Article

Assessment of the 8th edition of TNM staging system for gastric cancer: the results from the SEER and a single-institution database

Department of Surgical Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Jingting Zhang

Department of Surgical Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Jiale Zhang

Department of Surgical Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Rui Luo

Department of Surgical Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Zhenning Wang

Department of Surgical Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Huimian Xu

Department of Surgical Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Baojun Huang

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: bjhuang@cmu.edu.cn

Department of Surgical Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No.155 Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110001, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:14 Nov 2018https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2018-0299

View article

Abstract

Aim: To investigate whether the 8th edition of Tumor, Node, Metastasis (TNM) staging could properly evaluate the prognosis of gastric cancer patients. Methods: The prognostic performance between the 7th and 8th edition of TNM staging was compared and clinicopathologic features were analyzed. Results: The stage shifts in the 8th edition staging resulted in the increased numbers of stage IIIA patients and decreased numbers of stage IIB, stage IIIB and stage IIIC patients. Compared with the previous edition, the 8th edition of TNM staging provided a better prognostic stratification for stage III patients. However, whether it is reasonable to incorporate T4aN2, T4aN3a and T4bN3b into stage IIIA, stage IIIB and stage IIIC respectively, which still need further validation. Conclusion: Despite the obvious superiority, several deficiencies may still exist in the new edition staging. To better provide prognostic information and therapeutic guidance for gastric cancer patients, the TNM staging system should be further improved in the future.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1 Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J. Clin. 65(2), 87–108 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2 Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 136(5), e359–e386 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3 Sun Z, Wang ZN, Zhu Z et al. Evaluation of the seventh edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for gastric cancer: results from a Chinese monoinstitutional study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 19(6), 1918–1927 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4 Reim D, Loos M, Vogl F et al. Prognostic implications of the seventh edition of the International Union Against Cancer classification for patients with gastric cancer: the western experience of patients treated in a single-center European institution. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(2), 263–271 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5 Washington K. 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 17(12), 3077–3079 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6 Li FX, Zhang RP, Liang H, Quan JC, Liu H, Zhang H. Validity and necessity of sub-classification of N3 in the 7th UICC TNM stage of gastric cancer. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 14(3), 2091–2095 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7 Jun KH, Lee JS, Kim JH, Kim JJ, Chin HM, Park SM. The rationality of N3 classification in the 7th edition of the International Union Against Cancer TNM staging system for gastric adenocarcinomas: a case–control study. Int. J. Surg. 12(9), 893–896 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8 Ilhan E, Ureyen O, Meral UM. Ongoing problems concerning 7th TNM staging system and proposals for 8th TNM staging system of gastric cancer. Prz. Gastroenterol. 11(4), 223–225 (2016). •• Current several studies evaluating the prognostic value of the 8th edition TNM staging for gastric cancer.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9 In H, Solsky I, Palis B, Langdon-Embry M, Ajani J, Sano T. Validation of the 8th Edition of the AJCC TNM Staging System for Gastric Cancer using the National Cancer Database. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 24(12), 3683–3691 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10 Shu P, Qin J, Shen K et al. The IGCA staging system is more accurate than AJCC7 system in stratifying survival of patients with gastric cancer in stage III. BMC Cancer 17(1), 238 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11 Kim SG, Seo HS, Lee HH, Song KY, Park CH. Comparison of the differences in survival rates between the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC TNM staging system for gastric adenocarcinoma: a single-institution study of 5,507 patients in Korea. J. Gastric Cancer 17(3), 212–219 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12 Lu J, Zheng CH, Cao LL et al. The effectiveness of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification in the prognosis evaluation of gastric cancer patients: a comparative study between the 7th and 8th editions. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 43(12), 2357–2365 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13 Ji X, Bu ZD, Yan Y et al. The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system for gastric cancer is superior to the 7th edition: results from a Chinese mono-institutional study of 1663 patients. Gastric Cancer 21(4), 643–652 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14 Lu J, Zheng CH, Cao LL et al. Validation of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th edition) changes for patients with stage III gastric cancer: survival analysis of a large series from a Specialized Eastern Center. Cancer Med. 6(10), 2179–2187 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15 Bickenbach K, Strong VE. Comparisons of gastric cancer treatments: east vs. west. J. Gastric Cancer 12(2), 55–62 (2012). • Focuses on the impact of the number of retrieved lymph nodes on N stage.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16 Smith DD, Schwarz RR, Schwarz RE. Impact of total lymph node count on staging and survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a large US-population database. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(28), 7114–7124 (2005).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17 Okajima W, Komatsu S, Ichikawa D et al. Prognostic impact of the number of retrieved lymph nodes in patients with gastric cancer. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 31(9), 1566–1571 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18 Yeh CN, Wang SY, Hsu JT et al. N3 subclassification incorporated into the final pathologic staging of gastric cancer: a modified system based on current AJCC staging. Medicine 94(8), e575 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19 Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Hahn S et al. Evaluation of the seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Classification of gastric adenocarcinoma in comparison with the sixth classification. Cancer 116(24), 5592–5598 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20 Sano T, Coit DG, Kim HH et al. Proposal of a new stage grouping of gastric cancer for TNM classification: International Gastric Cancer Association staging project. Gastric Cancer 20(2), 217–225 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21 Ueno S, Tanabe G, Sako K et al. Discrimination value of the new western prognostic system (CLIP score) for hepatocellular carcinoma in 662 Japanese patients. Cancer of the Liver Italian Program. Hepatology 34(3), 529–534 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22 Yoon HM, Ryu KW, Nam BH et al. Is the new seventh AJCC/UICC staging system appropriate for patients with gastric cancer? J. Am. Coll. Surg. 214(1), 88–96 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23 Marano L, Boccardi V, Braccio B et al. Comparison of the 6th and 7th editions of the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system for gastric cancer focusing on the “N” parameter-related survival: the monoinstitutional NodUs Italian study. World J. Surg. Oncol. 13, 215 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24 Warneke VS, Behrens HM, Hartmann JT et al. Cohort study based on the seventh edition of the TNM classification for gastric cancer: proposal of a new staging system. J. Clin. Oncol. 29(17), 2364–2371 (2011). • Focuses on the optimum number of retrieved lymph nodes in gastric cancer patients and its impact on prognostic assessment.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25 Liu YY, Fang WL, Wang F et al. Does a higher cutoff value of lymph node retrieval substantially improve survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer? – Time to embrace a new digit. Oncologist 22(1), 97–106 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26 Woo Y, Goldner B, Ituarte P et al. Lymphadenectomy with optimum of 29 lymph nodes retrieved associated with improved survival in advanced gastric cancer: a 25,000-patient international database study. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 224(4), 546–555 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27 Seevaratnam R, Bocicariu A, Cardoso R et al. How many lymph nodes should be assessed in patients with gastric cancer? A systematic review. Gastric Cancer 15(Suppl. 1), S70–S88 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28 Yuan SQ, Chen YT, Huang ZP. Equipping the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging for Gastric Cancer with the 15-node minimum: a population-based study using recursive partitioning analysis. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 21(10), 1591–1598 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 14, No. 29

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 226 times

History

Received 14 April 2018

Accepted 10 August 2018

Published online 14 November 2018

Published in print December 2018

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2018-0299

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This work were supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC; NO.81172408 NO.81272716) and Shenyang Municipal Science and Technology Plan Project (NO.17-231-1-49). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

Our study was approved by the Ethics Committee of China Medical University, so the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards published in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All individual participants included in the validation cohort were provided with written informed consent.

PDF download