Recommendations for clinical staging (cTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals Journal Article


Authors: Rice, T. W.; Ishwaran, H.; Blackstone, E. H.; Hofstetter, W. L.; Kelsen, D. P.; Apperson-Hansen, C.; for the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration, Investigators
Article Title: Recommendations for clinical staging (cTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals
Abstract: We report analytic and consensus processes that produced recommendations for clinical stage groups (cTNM) of esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer for the AJCC/UICC cancer staging manuals, 8th edition. The Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC) provided data on 22,123 clinically staged patients with epithelial esophageal cancers. Risk-adjusted survival for each patient was developed using random survival forest analysis from which (1) data-driven clinical stage groups were identified wherein survival decreased monotonically and was distinctive between and homogeneous within groups and (2) data-driven anatomic clinical stage groups based only on cTNM. The AJCC Upper GI Task Force, by smoothing, simplifying, expanding, and assessing clinical applicability, produced (3) consensus clinical stage groups. Compared with pTNM, cTNM survival was “pinched,” with poorer survival for early cStage groups and better survival for advanced ones. Histologic grade was distinctive for data-driven grouping of cT2N0M0 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and cT1-2N0M0 adenocarcinoma, but consensus removed it. Grouping was different by histopathologic cell type. For SCC, cN0-1 was distinctive for cT3 but not cT1-2, and consensus removed cT4 subclassification and added subgroups 0, IVA, and IVB. For adenocarcinoma, N0-1 was distinctive for cT1-2 but not cT3-4a, cStage II subgrouping was necessary (T1N1M0 [IIA] and T2N0M0 [IIB]), advanced cancers cT3-4aN0-1M0 plus cT2N1M0 comprised cStage III, and consensus added subgroups 0, IVA, and IVB. Treatment decisions require accurate cStage, which differs from pStage. Understaging and overstaging are problematic, and additional factors, such as grade, may facilitate treatment decisions and prognostication until clinical staging techniques are uniformly applied and improved. © 2016 International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
Keywords: squamous cell carcinoma; staging; adenocarcinoma; statistics; esophageal malignancy
Journal Title: Diseases of the Esophagus
Volume: 29
Issue: 8
ISSN: 1120-8694
Publisher: Oxford University Press  
Date Published: 2016-11-01
Start Page: 913
End Page: 919
Language: English
DOI: 10.1111/dote.12540
PROVIDER: scopus
PUBMED: 27905171
PMCID: PMC5591442
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 3 January 2017 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. David P Kelsen
    537 Kelsen