Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1126–1132 | Cite as

Comparative Performance of the 7th and 8th Editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Systems for Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Trunk and Extremities

  • Sarah B. Fisher
  • Yi-Ju Chiang
  • Barry W. Feig
  • Janice N. Cormier
  • Kelly K. Hunt
  • Keila E. Torres
  • Christina L. Roland
Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Abstract

Background

The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging for soft tissue sarcomas of the trunk/extremities divides T stage into four categories and upstages nodal disease to stage IV. We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to evaluate the prognostic power of the new system.

Methods

A total of 26,144 patients were identified from the NCDB from 2004 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard models.

Results

Including T3 (10 cm > × >15 cm) and T4 (> 15 cm) categories resulted in an increased number of patients classified as stage III (5120 as IIIA [19.6%] and 4280 as IIIB [16.4%], vs. 7882 [30.1%] previously), and there was a small increase in the number of patients classified as stage IV (2776 [10.6%], vs. 2565 [9.8%] previously). In the 7th edition, the hazard ratio (HR) for death increases with stage, with large incremental increases between stages II–III and III–IV. In the 8th edition, the HR for death demonstrates smaller incremental increases between each stage. Five-year OS for 7th edition T1 and T2 patients was 78.8 and 58.8% (p < 0.01), respectively, versus 62.6, 53.5, and 56.1% for T2, T3, and T4 patients, respectively, in the 8th edition (p < 0.01). Patients with isolated nodal disease (n = 211) had a better 5-year OS than those with distant metastases (33.1% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The AJCC 8th edition uses T stage to more accurately stratify OS in patients with large, high-grade tumors (T3/4) compared with those patients with T2 tumors, which facilitates risk assessment. The distinction between T3 and T4 may not be clinically significant. Patients with metastatic nodal disease have a survival outcome intermediate to those with stages III and IV disease.

Notes

Disclosures

No specific funding, no conflict of interest disclosures.

Supplementary material

10434_2018_6378_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)
10434_2018_6378_MOESM2_ESM.tif (567 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 567 kb). Flowchart demonstrating how the final cohort of 26,144 patients with extremity and superficial trunk soft tissue sarcoma was obtained

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Database. 2017. Available at: www.facs.org/quality=programs/cancer/ncdb. Accessed 17 Aug 2017
  3. 3.
    Mohanty S, Bilimoria KY. Comparing national cancer registries: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Journal of surgical oncology. 2014;109(7):629–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 8th Edition. Springer, Berlin; 2017Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maki RG, Moraco N, Antonescu CR, et al. Toward better soft tissue sarcoma staging: building on american joint committee on cancer staging systems versions 6 and 7. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3377–83CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lahat G, Tuvin D, Wei C, et al. New perspectives for staging and prognosis in soft tissue sarcoma. Ann surg Oncol. 2008;15(10):2739–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Refaie WB, Andtbacka RHI, Ensor J, et al. Lymphadenectomy for isolated lymph node metastasis from extremity soft-tissue sarcomas. Cancer. 2008;112(8):1821–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Voss RK, Chiang YJ, Torres KE, et al. Adherence to National comprehensive cancer network guidelines is associated with improved survival for patients with stage 2A and stages 2B and 3 extremity and superficial trunk soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(11):3271–78CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atalay C, Altinok M, Seref B. The impact of lymph node metastases on survival in extremity soft tissue sarcomas. World J Surg. 2007;31(7):1433–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johannesmeyer D, Smith V, Cole DJ, Esnaola NF, Camp ER. The impact of lymph node disease in extremity soft-tissue sarcomas: a population-based analysis. Am J Surg. 2013;206(3):289–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sawamura C, Matsumoto S, Shimoji T, Ae K, Okawa A. Lymphadenectomy and histologic subtype affect overall survival of soft tissue sarcoma patients with nodal metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(3):926–931.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherman KL, Kinnier CV, Farina DA, et al. Examination of national lymph node evaluation practices for adult extremity soft tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(6):682–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keung EZ, Chiang Y, Voss R, et al. Defining the incidence and clinical significance of lymph node metastasis in soft tissue sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(1):170–177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Behranwala KA, A’Hern R, Omar AM, Thomas JM. Prognosis of lymph node metastasis in soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(7):714–719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riad S, Griffin AM, Liberman B, et al. Lymph node metastasis in soft tissue sarcoma in an extremity. Clin orthop Relat Res. 2004;(426):129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guillou L, Coindre JM, Bonichon F, et al. Comparative study of the National Cancer Institute and French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group grading systems in a population of 410 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(1):350–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, Shi W, Brennan MF. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(5):1679–1689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dalal KM, Kattan MW, Antonescu CR, Brennan MF, Singer S. Subtype specific prognostic nomogram for patients with primary liposarcoma of the retroperitoneum, extremity, or trunk. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3):381–391PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kattan MW, Leung DH, Brennan MF. Postoperative nomogram for 12-year sarcoma-specific death. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(3):791–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mariani L, Miceli R, Kattan MW, et al. Validation and adaptation of a nomogram for predicting the survival of patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma using a three-grade system. Cancer. 2005;103(2):402–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Corey RM, Swett K, Ward WG. Epidemiology and survivorship of soft tissue sarcomas in adults: a national cancer database report. Cancer Med. 2014;3(5):1404–1415CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arbiser ZK, Folpe AL, Weiss SW. Consultative (expert) second opinions in soft tissue pathology. Analysis of problem-prone diagnostic situations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116(4):473–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah B. Fisher
    • 1
  • Yi-Ju Chiang
    • 1
  • Barry W. Feig
    • 1
  • Janice N. Cormier
    • 1
  • Kelly K. Hunt
    • 1
  • Keila E. Torres
    • 1
  • Christina L. Roland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations