External validation of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for gall bladder carcinoma
Background: To validate the changes within the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8 th staging system for gall bladder carcinoma compared to AJCC 7 th staging system. - Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database [2004-2014] was queried. Kaplan-Meier survival anal...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[2018]
|
| In: |
Journal of gastrointestinal oncology
Year: 2018, Volume: 9, Issue: 6, Pages: 1084-1090 |
| ISSN: | 2219-679X |
| Online Access: | Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: http://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/23700
|
| Author Notes: | Hani Oweira, Arianeb Mehrabi, Anwar Giryes, Aysun Tekbas, Omar Abdel-Rahman |
| Summary: | Background: To validate the changes within the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8 th staging system for gall bladder carcinoma compared to AJCC 7 th staging system. - Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database [2004-2014] was queried. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Log-rank testing were assessed according to both AJCC 7 th and 8 th staging systems. Likewise, Cox cancer-specific hazard ratio was evaluated according to both staging systems. - Results: Overall survival was assessed according to the two staging systems; and P values for overall trend (log/rank test) were significant (P<0.001) for both scenarios. Cox regression cancer-specific hazard adjusted for age, gender, histology, gender and surgery was evaluated according to the two staging systems. According to AJCC 7 th staging system, the following pair wise hazard ratio comparisons were significant (II vs . IIIA; IIIB vs . IVA; IVA vs . IVB). According to AJCC 8 th staging system, the following pair wise hazard ratio comparisons were significant (II vs . IIIA; IVA vs . IVB). C-statistic was assessed using death from gall bladder carcinoma as the dependent variable; and the findings for the two staging systems were as follows: AJCC 7 th staging system: 0.684 (SE: 0.008; 95% CI: 0.667-0.701); AJCC 8 th staging system: 0.682 (SE: 0.009; 95% CI: 0.665-0.698). - Conclusions: There is a comparable discriminatory performance for AJCC 8 th staging system compared to AJCC 7 th staging system. Change form location-based to number-based N category assessment does not improve the overall prognostic performance of the staging system. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Gesehen am 11.03.2020 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 2219-679X |