• Plos One · Jan 2014

    Comparative Study

    A comparison between the sixth and seventh editions of the UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in a Chinese cohort.

    • Jing Li, Xiong Zou, Yun-Long Wu, Jing-Cui Guo, Jing-Ping Yun, Miao Xu, Qi-Sheng Feng, Li-Zhen Chen, Jin-Xin Bei, Yi-Xin Zeng, and Ming-Yuan Chen.
    • Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China; Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651, Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China; Department of Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China.
    • Plos One. 2014 Jan 1; 9 (12): e116261.

    BackgroundThe International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC/AJCC) TNM staging system of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is the most important system for survival prediction. The TNM 7th edition UICC/AJCC TNM staging system for NPC was adopted in January 2009, and is now internationally recommended. In comparison with the TNM 6th edition, there were several revisions in the new edition staging system. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic value of the TNM 7th edition for NPC patients in comparison with the TNM 6th edition.MethodClinical data of 2,629 NPC patients from the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between January 2006 and December 2010 were retrospectively collected and all the patients were restaged according to the criteria of the TNM 6th edition and TNM 7th edition UICC/AJCC staging manual. Univariate and multivariate COX proportional hazards analyses were applied to evaluate the prognostic values between adjacent stage categories of the TNM 6th edition and TNM 7th edition.ResultsIn comparison with the TNM 6th edition, a significant alteration of the distribution of N categories was observed when the TNM 7th edition was applied (χ2 = 20.589, P<0.001), with 119 (119/670, 17.8%) patients up-staging from N0 to N1. With regard to T and overall stage, 37 (37/561, 6.6%) patients were down-staged from T2a with the TNM 6th edition to T1 with the TNM 7th edition, and finally two patients were up-staged to overall stage II (2/118, 1.7%). Moreover, the survival curves were significantly segregated (P<0.05) between T1 and T2 as well as N1 and N2 with the TNM 7th edition.ConclusionsThe TNM 7th edition led to a significant alteration in the distribution of N categories and it is superior to the TNM 6th edition in predicting the frequency of overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…