Research ArticleOriginal Article

Validation of the eighth edition of the AJCC staging system for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma initially receiving chemoradiotherapy and proposal of modifications

Xiaofei Zhu, Di Chen, Yangsen Cao, Xianzhi Zhao, Xiaoping Ju, Yuxin Shen, Fei Cao, Shuiwang Qing, Fang Fang, Zhen Jia and Huojun Zhang
Cancer Biology & Medicine May 2020, 17 (2) 492-500; DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2019.0101

References

  1. 1.↵
    2. Saka B,
    3. Balci S,
    4. Basturk O,
    5. Bagci P,
    6. Postlewait LM,
    7. Maithel S, et al.
    Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is spread to the peripancreatic soft tissue in the majority of resected cases, rendering the AJCC T-Stage protocol (seventh Edition) inapplicable and insignificant: a sizebased staging system (pT1: ≤2, pT2: >2–≤4, pT3: > 4 cm) is more valid and clinically relevant. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 2010–8.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    2. Murakami Y,
    3. Uemura K,
    4. Sudo T,
    5. Hayashidani Y,
    6. Hashimoto Y,
    7. Nakashima A, et al.
    Number of metastatic lymph nodes, but not lymph node ratio, is an independent prognostic factor after resection of pancreatic carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 211: 196–204.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.
    2. Strobel O,
    3. Hinz U,
    4. Gluth A,
    5. Hank T,
    6. Hackert T,
    7. Bergmann F, et al.
    Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: number of positive nodes allows to distinguish several N categories. Ann Surg. 2015; 261: 961–9.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    2. Tol JA,
    3. Brosens LA,
    4. van Dieren S,
    5. van Gulik TM,
    6. Busch OR,
    7. Besselink MG, et al.
    Impact of lymph node ratio on survival in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Br J Surg. 2015; 102: 237–45.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    2. van Roessel S,
    3. Kasumova GG,
    4. Verheij J,
    5. Najarian RM,
    6. Maggino L,
    7. de Pastena M, et al.
    International validation of the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Staging System in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. JAMA Surg. 2018; 153: e183617.
  6. 6.↵
    2. Allen PJ,
    3. Kuk D,
    4. Castillo CF,
    5. Basturk O,
    6. Wolfgang CL,
    7. Cameron JL, et al.
    Multi-institutional validation study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th edition) changes for T and N staging in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2017; 265: 185–91.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    2. Shi S,
    3. Hua J,
    4. Liang C,
    5. Meng Q,
    6. Liang D,
    7. Xu J, et al.
    Proposed modification of the 8th edition of the AJCC Staging System for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2019; 269: 944–50.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    2. Siegel RL,
    3. Miller KD,
    4. Jemal A.
    Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 7–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    2. Zhu X,
    3. Ju X,
    4. Cao Y,
    5. Shen Y,
    6. Cao F,
    7. Qing S, et al.
    Patterns of local failure after stereotactic body radiation therapy and sequential chemotherapy as initial treatment for pancreatic cancer: implications of target volume design. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019; 104: 101–10.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    2. Zhu X,
    3. Li F,
    4. Ju X,
    5. Shen Y,
    6. Cao Y,
    7. Cao F, et al.
    Prediction of overall survival after re-irradiation with stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer with a novel prognostic model (the SCAD score). Radiother Oncol. 2018; 129: 313–8.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    2. Zhu X,
    3. Shi D,
    4. Li F,
    5. Ju X,
    6. Cao Y,
    7. Shen Y, et al.
    Prospective analysis of different combined regimens of stereotactic body radiation therapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Cancer Med. 2018; 7: 2913–24.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    2. Benedict SH,
    3. Yenice KM,
    4. Followill D,
    5. Galvin JM,
    6. Hinson W,
    7. Kavanagh B, et al.
    Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys. 2010; 37: 4078–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    2. Ueno H,
    3. Ioka T,
    4. Ikeda M,
    5. Ohkawa S,
    6. Yanagimoto H,
    7. Boku N, et al.
    Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1 alone, or gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 1640–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.
    2. Morizane C,
    3. Okusaka T,
    4. Furuse J,
    5. Ishii H,
    6. Ueno H,
    7. Ikeda M, et al.
    A phase II study of S-1 in gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009; 63: 313–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    2. Sudo K,
    3. Yamaguchi T,
    4. Nakamura K,
    5. Denda T,
    6. Hara T,
    7. Ishihara T, et al.
    Phase II study of S-1 in patients with gemcitabine-resistant advanced pancreatic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011; 67: 249–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    2. Al-Hawary MM,
    3. Francis IR,
    4. Chari ST,
    5. Fishman EK,
    6. Hough DM,
    7. Lu DS, et al.
    Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology. 2014; 270: 248–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    2. Uno H,
    3. Cai T,
    4. Pencina MJ,
    5. D’Agostino RB,
    6. Wei LJ.
    On the C-statistics for evaluating overall adequacy of risk prediction procedures with censored survival data. Stat Med. 2011; 30: 1105–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    2. Guo C,
    3. Yo S,
    4. JangW .
    Evaluating predictive accuracy of survival models with PROC PHREG. 2017. https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings17/SAS0462-2017.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
  19. 19.↵
    2. Alba AC,
    3. Agoritsas T,
    4. Walsh M,
    5. Hanna S,
    6. Iorio A,
    7. Devereaux PJ, et al.
    Discrimination and calibration of clinical prediction models: users’ guides to the medical literature. J Am Med Assoc. 2017; 318: 1377–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    2. Schlitter AM,
    3. Jesinghaus M,
    4. Jäger C,
    5. Konukiewitz B,
    6. Muckenhuber A,
    7. Demir IE, et al.
    pT but not pN stage of the 8th TNM classification significantly improves prognostication in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2017; 84: 121–9.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    2. Song M,
    3. Yoon SB,
    4. Lee IS,
    5. Hong TH,
    6. Choi HJ,
    7. Choi MH, et al.
    Evaluation of the prognostic value of the new AJCC 8th edition staging system for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma; a need to subclassify stage III? Eur J Cancer. 2018; 104: 62–9.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords