Comparison of model fit and discriminatory ability of M category as defined by the 7th and 8th editions of the tumor-node-metastasis classification of colorectal cancer and the 9th edition of the Japanese classification.
Aged
Anus Neoplasms
/ classification
Appendiceal Neoplasms
/ classification
Colonic Neoplasms
/ classification
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ classification
Female
Humans
Japan
Lymphatic Metastasis
/ drug therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
/ classification
ROC Curve
Rectal Neoplasms
/ classification
Retrospective Studies
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
TNM 7th edition
TNM 8th edition
anal carcinoma
appendiceal
colorectal cancer
japanese Classification of colorectal
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
revised:
18
03
2021
received:
01
11
2020
accepted:
21
04
2021
pubmed:
30
9
2021
medline:
9
3
2022
entrez:
29
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In transitioning from the 7th edition of the tumor-node-metastasis classification (TNM-7) to the 8th edition (TNM-8), colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastasis was newly categorized as M1c. In the 9th edition of the Japanese Classification of colorectal, appendiceal, and anal carcinoma (JPC-9), M1c is further subdivided into M1c1 (without other organ involvement) and M1c2 (with other organ involvement). This study aimed to compare the model fit and discriminatory ability of the M category of these three classification systems, as no study to date has made this comparison. The study population consisted of stage IV colorectal cancer patients who were referred to the National Cancer Center Hospital from 2000 to 2017. The Akaike information criterion (AIC), Harrell's concordance index (C-index), and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the three classification systems. Subgroup analyses, stratified by initial treatment year, were also performed. According to TNM-8, 670 (55%) patients had M1a, 273 (22%) had M1b, and 279 (23%) had M1c (87 M1c1 and 192 M1c2 using JPC-9) tumors. Among the three classification systems, JPC-9 had the lowest AIC value (JPC-9: 10546.3; TNM-7: 10555.9; TNM-8: 10585.5), highest C-index (JPC-9: 0.608; TNM-7: 0.598; TNM-8: 0.599), and superior time-dependent ROC curves throughout the observation period. Subgroup analyses were consistent with these results. While the revised M category definition did not improve model fit and discriminatory ability from TNM-7 to TNM-8, further subdivision of M1c in JPC-9 improved these parameters. These results support further revisions to M1 subcategories in future editions of the TNM classification system.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In transitioning from the 7th edition of the tumor-node-metastasis classification (TNM-7) to the 8th edition (TNM-8), colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastasis was newly categorized as M1c. In the 9th edition of the Japanese Classification of colorectal, appendiceal, and anal carcinoma (JPC-9), M1c is further subdivided into M1c1 (without other organ involvement) and M1c2 (with other organ involvement). This study aimed to compare the model fit and discriminatory ability of the M category of these three classification systems, as no study to date has made this comparison.
METHODS
The study population consisted of stage IV colorectal cancer patients who were referred to the National Cancer Center Hospital from 2000 to 2017. The Akaike information criterion (AIC), Harrell's concordance index (C-index), and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the three classification systems. Subgroup analyses, stratified by initial treatment year, were also performed.
RESULTS
According to TNM-8, 670 (55%) patients had M1a, 273 (22%) had M1b, and 279 (23%) had M1c (87 M1c1 and 192 M1c2 using JPC-9) tumors. Among the three classification systems, JPC-9 had the lowest AIC value (JPC-9: 10546.3; TNM-7: 10555.9; TNM-8: 10585.5), highest C-index (JPC-9: 0.608; TNM-7: 0.598; TNM-8: 0.599), and superior time-dependent ROC curves throughout the observation period. Subgroup analyses were consistent with these results.
CONCLUSIONS
While the revised M category definition did not improve model fit and discriminatory ability from TNM-7 to TNM-8, further subdivision of M1c in JPC-9 improved these parameters. These results support further revisions to M1 subcategories in future editions of the TNM classification system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34587374
doi: 10.1002/cam4.3972
pmc: PMC8525077
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6937-6946Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1709-1719
pubmed: 27743922
Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 May;27(5):1458-1470
pubmed: 31965374
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2020 Jan;35(1):125-131
pubmed: 31797096
Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87
pubmed: 8668867
JAMA Surg. 2015 Mar 1;150(3):245-51
pubmed: 25588105
Int J Cancer. 2007 Jun 15;120(12):2650-5
pubmed: 17304512
Int J Cancer. 2011 Jun 1;128(11):2717-25
pubmed: 20715167
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020 Apr;46(4 Pt A):582-589
pubmed: 31757660
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1;49(4):321-328
pubmed: 30608547
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):337-44
pubmed: 10877287
Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb;25(2):330-337
pubmed: 31677019
Br J Surg. 2012 May;99(5):699-705
pubmed: 22287157
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jan;25(1):173-178
pubmed: 29063295
J Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;100(7):529-33
pubmed: 19697395
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jun;25(6):1646-1653
pubmed: 29572704
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 May;26(5):1358-1365
pubmed: 30719633
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jan 20;30(3):263-7
pubmed: 22162570