Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Liu, Kai
• Feng, Fan
• Chen, Xin-zu
• Zhou, Xin-yi
• Zhang, Jing-yu
• Chen, Xiao-long
• Zhang, Wei-han
• Yang, Kun
• Zhang, Bo
• Zhang, Hong-wei
• Zhou, Zong-guang
• Hu, Jian-kun

Titel

Comparison between gastric and esophageal classification system among adenocarcinomas of esophagogastric junction according to AJCC 8th edition: a retrospective observational study from two high-volume institutions in China

Ist Teil von

• Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2019-05, Vol.22 (3), p.506-517

Ort / Verlag

Singapore: Springer Singapore

Erscheinungsjahr

2019

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background The new 8th TNM system attributes AEG Siewert type II to esophageal classification system. However, the gastric and esophageal classification system which was more suitable for type II remains in disputation. This study aimed to illuminate the 8th TNM-EC or TNM-GC system which was more rational for type II, especially for patients underwent transhiatal approaches. Methods We collected the database of patients with AEG who underwent radical surgical resection from two high-volume institutions in China: West China Hospital ( N  = 773) and Xi Jing Hospital of Fourth Military University ( N  = 637). The cases were randomly matched into 705 training cohort and 705 validation cohort. All the cases were reclassified by the 8th edition of TNM-EC and TNM-GC. The distribution of patients in each stage, the hazard ratio of each stage, and the separation of the survival were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Comparisons between the different staging systems for the prognostic prediction were performed with the rcorrp.cens package in Hmisc in R (version 3.4.4. http://www.R-project.org/ ). The validity of these two systems was evaluated by Akaike information criterion (AIC) and concordance index (C-index). Results By univariate analysis, the HRs from stage IA/IB to stage IV/IVB were monotonously increased according to TNM-GC scheme in both cohorts (training 2.63, 3.91, 5.02, 8.64, 15.51 and 29.64; validation 1.54, 3.55, 4.91, 7.14, 11.67, 18.71 and 48.32) whereas only a fluctuating increased tendency was found when staged by TNM-EC. After the multivariate analysis, TNM-GC ( P  < 0.001), TNM-EC ( P  = 0.001) in training cohort and TNM-GC ( P  < 0.001) TNM-EC ( P  < 0.001) in the validation cohort were both independent prognostic factors. The C-index value for the TNM-GC scheme was larger than that of TNM-EC system in both training (0.721 vs. 0.690, P  < 0.001) and validation (0.721 vs. 0.696, P  < 0.001) cohorts. After stratification analysis for Siewert type II, the C-index for TNM-GC scheme was still larger than that of TNM-EC in both training (0.724 vs. 0.694, P  = 0.005) and validation (0.723 vs. 0.699, P  < 0.001) cohorts. Conclusions The 8th TNM-GC scheme is superior to TNM-EC in predicting the prognosis of AEG especially for type II among patients underwent transhiatal approaches.