Recommendations for pathologic staging (pTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals.

We report analytic and consensus processes that produced recommendations for pathologic stage groups (pTNM) of esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer for the AJCC/UICC cancer staging manuals, 8th edition. The Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration provided data for 22,654 patients with epithelial esophageal cancers; 13,300 without preoperative therapy had pathologic assessment after esophagectomy or endoscopic treatment. Risk-adjusted survival for each patient was developed using random survival forest analysis to identify data-driven pathologic stage groups wherein survival decreased monotonically with increasing group, was distinctive between groups, and homogeneous within groups. The AJCC Upper GI Task Force, by smoothing, simplifying, expanding, and assessing clinical applicability, produced consensus pathologic stage groups. For pT1-3N0M0 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and pT1-2N0M0 adenocarcinoma, pT was inadequate for grouping; subcategorizing pT1 and adding histologic grade enhanced staging; cancer location improved SCC staging. Consensus eliminated location for pT2N0M0 and pT3N0M0G1 SCC groups, and despite similar survival, restricted stage 0 to pTis, excluding pT1aN0M0G1. Metastases markedly reduced survival; pT, pN, and pM sufficiently grouped advanced cancers. Stage IIA and IIB had different compositions for SCC and adenocarcinoma, but similar survival. Consensus stage IV subgrouping acknowledged pT4N+ and pN3 cancers had poor survival, similar to pM1. Anatomic pathologic stage grouping, based on pTNM only, produced identical consensus stage groups for SCC and adenocarcinoma at the cost of homogeneity in early groups. Pathologic staging can neither direct pre-treatment decisions nor aid in prognostication for treatment other than esophagectomy or endoscopic therapy. However, it provides a clean, single therapy reference point for esophageal cancer.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data.

We report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for patients with pathologically staged cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction after resection or ablation with no preoperative therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted de-identified data using standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 13,300 patients, 5,631 had squamous cell carcinoma, 7,558 adenocarcinoma, 85 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 26 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (51%), little weight loss (1.8 kg), 0-2 ECOG performance status (83%), and a history of smoking (70%). Cancers were pT1 (24%), pT2 (15%), pT3 (50%), pN0 (52%), pM0 (93%), and pG2-G3 (78%); most involved distal esophagus (71%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma was monotonic and distinctive across pTNM. Survival was more distinctive for adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma when pT was ordered by pN. Survival for pTis-1 adenocarcinoma was better than for squamous cell carcinoma, although monotonic and distinctive for both. WECC pathologic staging data is improved over that of the 7th edition, with more patients studied and patient and cancer variables collected. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics, and should direct 9th edition data collection. However, the role of pure pathologic staging as the principal point of reference for esophageal cancer staging is waning.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: clinical staging data.

To address uncertainty of whether clinical stage groupings (cTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for clinically staged patients from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 22,123 clinically staged patients, 8,156 had squamous cell carcinoma, 13,814 adenocarcinoma, 116 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 37 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (18.5-25 mg/kg2 , 47%), little weight loss (2.4 ± 7.8 kg), 0-1 ECOG performance status (67%), and history of smoking (67%). Cancers were cT1 (12%), cT2 (22%), cT3 (56%), cN0 (44%), cM0 (95%), and cG2-G3 (89%); most involved the distal esophagus (73%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for squamous cell carcinoma was not distinctive for early cT or cN; for adenocarcinoma, it was distinctive for early versus advanced cT and for cN0 versus cN+. Patients with early cancers had worse survival and those with advanced cancers better survival than expected from equivalent pathologic categories based on prior WECC pathologic data. Thus, clinical and pathologic categories do not share prognostic implications. This makes clinically based treatment decisions difficult and pre-treatment prognostication inaccurate. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient characteristics, cancer categories, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: neoadjuvant pathologic staging data.

To address uncertainty of whether pathologic stage groupings after neoadjuvant therapy (ypTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for pathologically staged cancers after neoadjuvant therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 7,773 pathologically staged neoadjuvant patients, 2,045 had squamous cell carcinoma, 5,686 adenocarcinoma, 31 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 11 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (61 years) men (83%) with normal (40%) or overweight (35%) body mass index, 0-1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (96%), and a history of smoking (69%). Cancers were ypT0 (20%), ypT1 (13%), ypT2 (18%), ypT3 (44%), ypN0 (55%), ypM0 (94%), and G2-G3 (72%); most involved the distal esophagus (80%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for yp categories was unequally depressed, more for earlier categories than later, compared with equivalent categories from prior WECC data for esophagectomy-alone patients. Thus, survival of patients with ypT0-2N0M0 cancers was intermediate and similar regardless of ypT; survival for ypN+ cancers was poor. Because prognoses for ypTNM and pTNM categories are dissimilar, prognostication should be based on separate ypTNM categories and groupings. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Comparison of CT and MR imaging in staging of neck metastases.

PURPOSE: To compare the abilities of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in detection of lymph node metastasis from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging and CT were performed with standard protocols in patients with known carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx. Histopathologic examination was performed to validate imaging findings. Between 1991 and 1994, 213 patients undergoing 311 neck dissections were accrued at three institutions. RESULTS: For the upper jugular and spinal accessory regions, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for combined information on size and internal abnormality were 0.80 for CT and 0.75 for MR imaging. Sensitivities, specificities, negative predictive values (NPVs), and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for various size criteria with and without internal abnormality information. With use of a 1-cm size or an internal abnormality to indicate a positive node, CT had an NPV of 84% and a PPV of 50%, and MR imaging had an NPV of 79% and a PPV of 52%. CT achieved an NPV of 90%, correlating with a PPV of 44%, with use of 5-mm size as an indicator of a positive node. CONCLUSION: CT performed slightly better than MR imaging for all interpretative criteria. However, a high NPV was achieved only when a low size criterion was used and was therefore associated with a relatively low PPV.