Skip to main content
Log in

Prognostic Performance of Preoperative Staging: Assessed by Using Multidetector Computed Tomography—Between the New Clinical Classification and the Pathological Classification in the Eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer Classification for Gastric Carcinoma

  • Gastrointestinal Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Since the eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification recently introduced the clinical classification for preoperative staging of gastric cancer, the new clinical classification has not been extensively validated yet. Therefore, in this study, we compared the prognostic performance of the new clinical classification and the pathologic classification for preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

Methods

We reviewed 3027 patients with gastric cancer who were surgically treated between 2009 and 2013. Patient survival was analyzed according to the preoperative stage by the clinical classification and the pathologic classification in the eighth AJCC classification. The prognostic performance was examined using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) value and Harrell c-index.

Results

Patient survival was significantly different across the different stages when both classifications were used. However, individual pairwise comparisons showed that survival differences between each stage were more distinctive and homogeneous in the pathologic classification. In the multivariate model adjusted for the final pathologic stage, preoperative staging by the pathologic classification was an independent prognostic factor, whereas the clinical classification was not. The pathologic classification showed a lower AIC value compared with the clinical classification (5100.64 vs. 5114.14). The Harrell c-index was higher in the pathologic classification than in the clinical classification (0.741 vs. 0.739).

Conclusions

The new clinical classification in the eighth AJCC classification discriminates patient survival well. However, it does not appear to have a better prognostic performance compared with the pathologic classification for preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Lee ES. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2015. Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50:303–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:1–19.

  4. Smyth EC, Verheij M, Allum W, et al. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(Suppl 5):v38–49.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hallinan JTPD, Venkatesh SK. Gastric carcinoma: imaging diagnosis, staging and assessment of treatment response. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:212–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ajani J, In H, Sano T, et al. Stomach. AJCC Cancer staging manual, 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 203–19.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Bando E, Makuuchi R, Irino T, Tanizawa Y, Kawamura T, Terashima M. Validation of the prognostic impact of the new tumor-node-metastasis clinical staging in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22:123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. In H, Ravetch E, Langdon-Embry M, et al. The newly proposed clinical and post-neoadjuvant treatment staging classifications for gastric adenocarcinoma for the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim JW, Shin SS, Heo SH, et al. The role of three-dimensional multidetector CT gastrography in the preoperative imaging of stomach cancer: emphasis on detection and localization of the tumor. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16:80–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Antolini L, Boracchi P, Biganzoli E. A time-dependent discrimination index for survival data. Stat Med. 2005;24:3927–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bozdogan H. Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika. 1987;52:345–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim SG, Seo HS, Lee HH, Song KY, Park CH. Comparison of the differences in survival rates between the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC TNM staging system for gastric adenocarcinoma: a single-institution study of 5,507 patients in Korea. J Gastric Cancer. 2017;17:212–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lu J, Zheng C-H, Cao L-L, et al. Comparison of the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification for patients with stage III gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:83555–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Park SR, Kim MJ, Ryu KW, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative clinical staging assessed by computed tomography in resectable gastric cancer patients: a viewpoint in the era of preoperative treatment. Ann Surg. 2010;251:428–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bando E, Makuuchi R, Tokunaga M, Tanizawa Y, Kawamura T, Terashima M. Impact of clinical tumor-node-metastasis staging on survival in gastric carcinoma patients receiving surgery. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:448–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fukagawa T, Katai H, Mizusawa J, et al. A prospective multi-institutional validity study to evaluate the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of pathological stage III gastric cancer (JCOG1302A). Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sano T, Coit DG, Kim HH, et al. Proposal of a new stage grouping of gastric cancer for TNM classification: International Gastric Cancer Association staging project. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:217–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seong Yeob Ryu MD, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

This study received no grant or fund, and all authors have declared no conflict of interest or financial support related to this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 377 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeong, O., Jung, M.R., Kang, J.H. et al. Prognostic Performance of Preoperative Staging: Assessed by Using Multidetector Computed Tomography—Between the New Clinical Classification and the Pathological Classification in the Eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer Classification for Gastric Carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 27, 545–551 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07845-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07845-3

Navigation