Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the 8th AJCC prognostic staging system for breast cancer in a population-based setting

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To validate the newly proposed American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) prognostic staging system for breast cancer.

Methods

Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database (2010–2014) was accessed. Cumulative incidence function was conducted (through assessment of sub-distribution hazard) according to both anatomical and prognostic stages. Likewise, Cox cause-specific hazard ratio with pairwise hazard ratio comparisons were also assessed for both anatomical and prognostic stages. Survival analyses according to both anatomical and prognostic staging systems were conducted through Kaplan–Meier analysis/log-rank testing.

Results

A total of 209,304 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer and upfront surgical treatment were included. According to anatomical stages, pairwise Cox hazard ratio comparisons between different stages were significant (P < 0.0001) except between stage IIIB and stage IIIC, while according to prognostic stages, all pairwise hazard ratio comparisons between different stages were significant (P < 0.05). Sub-distribution hazard ratio (using breast cancer death as the primary failure endpoint and using other causes of death as competing causes of death) adjusted for age, race, and surgery was as follows: for the anatomical groups, it was 1.671 (95% CI 1.627–1.716; P < 0.0001) indicating increasing risk of death from breast cancer with increasing stage; however, for the prognostic groups it was 1.790 (95% CI 1.744–1.838; P < 0.0001) indicating increasing risk of death from breast cancer with increasing stage. C-statistic was assessed using breast cancer death as the dependent variable; and the findings for the two staging systems were as follows: anatomical staging: 0.767 (SE 0.004; 95% CI 0.759–0.776); prognostic staging: 0.814 (SE 0.004; 95% CI 0.807–0.822).

Conclusions

The current analysis showed an improvement in the discriminatory value for the prognostic staging system compared to the anatomical staging system and endorsed its routine use in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. http://globocan.iarc.fr/ Accessed 27 Nov 2016

  2. Abdoli G, Bottai M, Sandelin K, Moradi T (2017) Breast cancer diagnosis and mortality by tumor stage and migration background in a nationwide cohort study in Sweden. Breast 31:57–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackisch C, Lammers P, Jacobs I (2017) Evolving landscape of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer treatment and the future of biosimilars. Breast 32:199–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK et al (2017) The eighth edition ajcc cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67(2):93–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nguyen DH, Truong PT, Walter CV, Hayashi E, Christie JL, Alexander C (2012) Limited M1 disease: a significant prognostic factor for stage IV breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19(9):3028–3034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Amin MB, Edge SB (2017) AJCC cancer staging manual. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. about the SEER program. http://seer.cancer.gov/about. Accessed 25 June 2016

  8. Giuliano AE, Connolly JL, Edge SB, Mittendorf EA, Rugo HS, Solin LJ et al (2017) Breast cancer—Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(4):290–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Souza JAd, Hunt B, Asirwa FC, Adebamowo C, Lopes G (2016) Global health equity: cancer care outcome disparities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. J Clin Oncol 34(1):6–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Figueroa-Magalhaes MC, Jelovac D, Connolly RM, Wolff AC (2014) Treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast 23(2):128–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yardley DA, Tripathy D, Brufsky AM, Rugo HS, Kaufman PA, Mayer M et al (2014) Long-term survivor characteristics in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer from registHER. Br J Cancer 110(11):2756–2764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Yi M, Mittendorf EA, Cormier JN, Buchholz TA, Bilimoria K, Sahin AA et al (2011) Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Clin Oncol 29(35):4654–4661

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Abdel-Rahman O (2017) Assessment of the prognostic and discriminating value of the novel bioscore system for breast cancer; a SEER database analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 164(1):231–236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mittendorf EA, Vila J, Tucker SL, Chavez-MacGregor M, Smith BD, Symmans WF et al (2016) The neo-bioscore update for staging breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: incorporation of prognostic biologic factors into staging after treatment. JAMA Oncol 2(7):929–936

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Vila J, Teshome M, Tucker SL, Woodward WA, Chavez-MacGregor M, Hunt KK et al (2017) Combining clinical and pathologic staging variables has prognostic value in predicting local-regional recurrence following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 265(3):574–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M, Kates RE, Shak S, Clemens M et al (2016) West German Study Group Phase III PlanB Trial: first prospective outcome data for the 21-gene recurrence score assay and concordance of prognostic markers by central and local pathology assessment. J Clin Oncol 34(20):2341–2349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mostert B, Sieuwerts AM, Kraan J, Bolt-de Vries J, van der Spoel P, van Galen A et al (2015) Gene expression profiles in circulating tumor cells to predict prognosis in metastatic breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 26(3):510–516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Lotfy Elsayed Street, Cairo, 11566, Egypt

    Omar Abdel-Rahman

Authors
  1. Omar Abdel-Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no competing interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Informed consent

As this study is based on a publicly available database without identifying patient information, informed consent was not needed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdel-Rahman, O. Validation of the 8th AJCC prognostic staging system for breast cancer in a population-based setting. Breast Cancer Res Treat 168, 269–275 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4577-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4577-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation