Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Breast Cancer Prognostic Staging System in Legacy Alliance Trials (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system combined anatomic stage (AS) with receptor status and grade to create prognostic stage (PS). PS has been validated in single-institution and cancer registry studies; however, missing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and variable treatment and follow-up create limitations. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the relative prognostic ability of PS versus AS to predict survival using breast cancer clinical trial data. METHODS: Women with non-metastatic breast cancer enrolled in six Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials were included (enrollment years 1997-2010). AS and PS were constructed using pathological tumor size, nodal status, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 status, and grade. Unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to predict overall survival within 5 years, with AS and PS as predictor variables. The relative predictive power of staging models was assessed by comparing Harrell concordance indices (C-indices). Kaplan-Meier-based mortality estimates were compared by stage. RESULTS: Overall, 6924 women were included (median age 53 years); 45.2% were diagnosed with ER+/PR+/HER2- tumors, 26.2% with HER2+ tumors, and 17.1% with ER-/PR-/HER2- tumors. Median follow-up time was 5 years (interquartile range 2.95-5.00). PS significantly improved predictive performance (C-index 0.721) for overall survival compared with AS (0.700) (p = 0.020). Kaplan-Meier hazard estimates suggested PS did not distinguish mortality risk between patients with IIB and IIIA or IB and IIA disease. CONCLUSIONS: PS has significantly improved predictive performance for OS compared with AS. As systemic therapies evolve, it will be important to re-evaluate the prognostic staging system, particularly for patients with intermediate-stage cancers. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

AJCC 8th edition prognostic staging provides no better discriminatory ability in prognosis than anatomical staging in triple negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively compared the prognostic value between the AJCC 8th edition anatomic (AS) and prognostic staging (PS) system for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) in a cohort from two involved institutions and a large population database. METHODS: Clinicopathological data of TNBCs were identified in two involved institutions (SYSUCC-PWH cohort). Data from SEER database during 2010-2015 was also accessed. We restaged all cases into AS and PS group according to the AJCC 8th staging system. RESULTS: A total of 611 and 31,941 TNBCs were identified in two cohorts, with a median follow-up of 53.5 and 27 months respectively. PS upstaged 46.1% of patients in SYSUCC-PWH cohort, and 62.4% in SEER cohort. No significant difference was observed in C index between AS and PS models for disease-specific survival (DSS), progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in either cohort. χ2 statistic and Hazard Ratio for PFS, DSS and OS showed better discrimination between IA and IB, IIB and IIIA, IIIA and IIIB in AS model than PS model. Besides, patients with IIIC unchanged stage showed worse PFS compared to those with AS IIIA or IIIB upstaged to PS IIIC in both cohorts(p = 0.049, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that prognostic staging system did not provide better discriminatory ability in predicting TNBCs prognosis than anatomic staging system.

Validation of the Prognostic Significance of the Prognostic Stage Group According to the Eighth Edition of American Cancer Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: An Analysis From Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 Database.

BACKGROUND: The eighth edition of the American Cancer Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer put forward the prognostic stage groups for the first time based on the traditional anatomic tumor-node-metastasis staging system. Our study intends to validate the predictive significance of the eighth edition staging system in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected and accessed 26,589 eligible cases of TNBC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2015) and reclassified the patient cohort according to the eighth edition of the AJCC staging system into anatomic and prognostic stages. RESULTS: The results showed that more than half of the patients upstaged in the prognostic stage when compared with the anatomic stage. By comparing with the anatomic stage, the prognostic stage had a higher likelihood ratio and linear trend χ2 values. The prognostic stage group also had higher Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion values than the anatomic stage group. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic staging system in TNBC patients performs more optimistic prognostic stratification and predictability than the anatomic staging system. Moreover, the latest AJCC staging system has a milestone importance to the history of breast cancer staging system.

A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) cancer staging system for luminal A breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical prognostic value of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for luminal A breast cancer. METHODS: Using both the anatomic and prognostic staging in the 8th edition of AJCC cancer staging system, we restaged patients with luminal A breast cancer treated at the Breast Disease Center, Peking University First Hospital from 2008 to 2014. Follow-up data including 5-year disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and other clinic-pathological data were collected to analyze the differences between the two staging subgroups. RESULTS: This study included 421 patients with luminal A breast cancer (median follow-up, 61 months). The 5-year DFS and OS rates were 98.3% and 99.3%, respectively. Significant differences in 5-year DFS but not OS were observed between different anatomic disease stages. Significant differences were observed in both 5-year DFS and OS between different prognostic stages. Application of the prognostic staging system resulted in assignment of 175 of 421 patients (41.6%) to a different group compared to their original anatomic stages. In total, 102 of 103 patients with anatomic stage IIA changed to prognostic stage IB, and 24 of 52 patients with anatomic stage IIB changed to prognostic stage IB, while 1 changed to prognostic stage IIIB. Twenty-two of 33 patients with anatomic stage IIIA were down-staged to IIA when staged by prognostic staging system, and the other 11 patients were down-staged to IIB. Two patients with anatomic stage IIIB were down-staged to IIIA. Among seven patients with anatomic stage IIIC cancer, two were down-staged to IIIA and four were down-staged to stage IIIB. CONCLUSIONS: The 8th edition of AJCC prognostic staging system is an important supplement to the breast cancer staging system. More clinical trials are needed to prove its ability to guide selection of proper systemic therapy and predict prognosis of breast cancer.

Prognostic elements extraction from documents to detect prognostic stage.

For cancer prediction, the prognostic stage is the main factor that helps medical experts to decide the optimal treatment for a patient. The main objective of this study is to predict prognostic stage from the medical records of various health institutions. Total 465 pathological and clinical reports of people living with breast cancer has been collected from India's reputed treatment institutions. Different anatomic and biologic factors are extracted from unstructured medical records using a novel combination of natural language processing (NLP) and fuzzy decision tree (FDT) for prognostic stage detection. This study has extracted the anatomic and biologic factors from medical reports with high accuracy. The average accuracy of the prognostic stage prediction found 93% and 83% in rural and urban regions, respectively. A generalized method for cancer staging with great accuracy in a different medical institution from dissimilar regional areas suggest that the proposed research improves the prognosis of breast cancer.

Information extraction for prognostic stage prediction from breast cancer medical records using NLP and ML.

For cancer prediction, the prognostic stage is the main factor that helps medical experts to decide the optimal treatment for a patient. Specialists study prognostic stage information from medical reports, often in an unstructured form, and take a larger review time. The main objective of this study is to suggest a generic clinical decision-unifying staging method to extract the most reliable prognostic stage information of breast cancer from medical records of various health institutions. Additional prognostic elements should be extracted from medical reports to identify the cancer stage for getting an exact measure of cancer and improving care quality. This study has collected 465 pathological and clinical reports of breast cancer sufferers from India's reputed medical institutions. The unstructured records were found distinct from each institute. Anatomic and biologic factors are extracted from medical records using the natural language processing, machine learning and rule-based method for prognostic stage detection. This study has extracted anatomic stage, grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) from medical reports with high accuracy and predicted prognostic stage for both regions. The prognostic stage prediction's average accuracy is found 92% and 82% in rural and urban areas, respectively. It was essential to combine biological and anatomical elements under a single prognostic staging method. A generic clinical decision-unifying staging method for prognostic stage detection with great accuracy in various institutions of different regional areas suggests that the proposed research improves the prognosis of breast cancer.

Validation of Prognostic Stage and Anatomic Stage in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition for Inflammatory Breast Cancer.

The AJCC updated its breast cancer staging system to incorporate biological factors in the "prognostic stage". We undertook this study to validate the prognostic and anatomic stages for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). We established two cohorts of IBC diagnosed without distant metastasis: (1) patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1991 and 2017 (MDA cohort) and (2) patients registered in the national Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015 (SEER cohort). For prognostic staging, estrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)+/ human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)+/grade 1-2 was staged as IIIA; ER+/PR-/HER2-/grade 3, ER-/PR+/HER2-/grade 3, and triple-negative cancers as IIIC; and all others as IIIB. Endpoints were breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). We studied 885 patients in the MDA cohort and 338 in the SEER cohort. In the MDA cohort, the prognostic stage showed significant predictive power for BCSS, OS, and DFS (all p < 0.0001), although the anatomic stage did not. In both cohorts, the Harrell concordance index (C index) was significantly higher in the prognostic stage than the anatomic stage for all endpoints. In conclusion, the prognostic stage provided more accurate prognostication for IBC than the anatomic stage. Our results show that the prognostic staging is applicable in IBC.

Incorporating Biologic Factors into the American Joint Committee on Cancer Breast Cancer Staging System: Review of the Supporting Evidence.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system has evolved in response to improved imaging, refined surgical techniques, enhanced pathologic evaluation, and greater understanding of tumor biology. The 8th edition has introduced clinical and pathologic prognostic stages for breast cancer that incorporate biologic variables (grade, estrogen/progesterone receptor status, HER2 status, multigene panels) with TNM categories that define the anatomic stage. The prognostic staging system facilitates more refined stratification than the anatomic stage with respect to survival and is an important advance that maintains the clinical relevance of the staging system by taking into account tumor biology and current treatment algorithms.

Comparison of AJCC Anatomic and Clinical Prognostic Stage Groups in Breast Cancer: Analysis of 3322 Cases From a Single Institution.

BACKGROUND: The American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic stage/prognostic group template arguably is the most powerful in predicting breast cancer outcomes because it considers the primary tumor, regional lymph node involvement, and presence of distant metastasis. However, other tumor and host characteristics have also been proved to be of prognostic value, including histologic grade and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Thus, the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer consolidated these factors into clinical prognostic stage groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We validated the clinical prognostic stage groups compared with the anatomic stage groups in a cohort of 3322 breast cancer patients. RESULTS: Compared with the anatomic stage, application of the clinical prognostic stage assigned 27.7% and 24.7% of cases to higher and lower stage groups, respectively. In 14% and 2.8% of cases, the assignment of clinical prognostic stage varied by 2 and 3 anatomic stages up or down, respectively. The Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated superior discriminatory power for clinical prognostic stage (overall χ2, 464.5; P < .0001 vs. χ2, 363.9; P < .0001). A pairwise comparison revealed that significant improvement was especially observed for patients with clinically prognostic stage I and III disease compared with that of the anatomic stage groups. CONCLUSION: The new clinical prognostic stage provides a more powerful, yet imperfect, tool for predicting breast cancer outcomes. Further refinement of this system might be necessary in the pursuit of precision medicine.

Predicting Outcomes after Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty for Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) remains one of the most common surgical treatments for patients with obstructive sleep apnea. However, the results after UPPP are unpredictable. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to identify predictors of success after UPPP. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: The keywords and medical subject heading terms used were uvulopalatopharyngoplasty and UPPP. Studies were included if UPPP was used as a single surgical procedure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea and results were presented separately as responder (surgical success) and nonresponder (surgical failure). Exclusion criteria included pediatric patients and other surgical procedures (eg, nasal and hypopharyngeal) performed at the same time as the UPPP. Age, body mass index, preoperative apnea-hypopnea index, Friedman stage, and several cephalometric variables were compared between responders and nonresponders. RESULTS: A total of 1257 studies were screened, with 15 studies included in this meta-analysis. Our results demonstrate that Friedman stage I is a strong predictor for success after UPPP, while Friedman stage III and low hyoid position are negative predictors. Age, body mass index, preoperative apnea-hypopnea index, and other cephalometric measurements were not significant. CONCLUSION: Friedman stage and hyoid position are important predictors for UPPP.