Explore the vast range of titles available.

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

ABSTRACT Context: Carcinoma breast is a complex disease having diverse clinical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical features. Basing on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor (HER2) status, these tumors are divided into triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) where tumor cells are negative for all three receptors and nontriple negative breast cancer (non-TNBC) where tumor cells are positive for one or two or all. The clinicopathological and characteristic prognostic features are highlighted here. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinicopathological and prognostic features of TNBC and non-TNBC cases diagnosed in our hospital setting. Settings and Design: Single institution, retrospective study conducted over 7 and half years. Subjects and Methods: Histopathologically confirmed breast cancer cases with ER, PR, and HER2 receptor assessment were categorized into TNBC and non-TNBC. Detailed study on clinicopathological and prognostic features including pathological prognostic stage as per 8th AJCC was done in cases who underwent modified radical mastectomy. Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed in percentage and presented in tables and charts. Results: The present study included 794 cases consisting of 253, 31.9% TNBC and 541, 68.1% non-TNBC cases. The mean age of TNBC and non-TNBC cases was 50.4 years and 51.7 years, respectively. Coagulative necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, lymph nodal metastasis, higher histopathological tumor grade, and NPI were observed in higher percentage of TNBC cases, i.e., 19 (10.9%), 21 (11.6%), 105 (57.7%), 127 (69.8%), and 149 (81.9%) cases, respectively, than non-TNBC seen in 18 (6.6%), 24 (8.8%), 135 (49.6%), 165 (60.7%), and 194 (71.3%) cases, respectively. Further, 25 (13.7%) TNBC and 1 (0.4%) non-TNBC case were upstaged, whereas 130 (47.8%) non-TNBC and 2 (1.1%) TNBC cases were downstaged by the pathological prognostic stage. Conclusions: TNBC is more aggressive having a poor prognosis than non-TNBC.

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.

The authors investigated the clinical utility of the revised prognostic staging system proposed in the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual in breast cancer (BC) patients. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 714 BC patients that received surgical treatment and standard adjuvant therapy from January 2005 to December 2007. All patients were restaged for anatomic TNM stage and pathological prognostic (PP) stage as defined in the revised eighth edition of the AJCC manual. Compared with anatomic stage, PP stage was different from anatomic stage in 325 (45.5%) patients, 254 were down-staged and 71 were upstaged. There were significant differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to different anatomic stages or PP stages (all, p < 0.001). In anatomic stage I patients, OS was significantly different between PP stages IA and IB (p < 0.001), but no significant difference was observed between anatomic stages IA and IB (p = 0.413). PP stages exhibited significant OS differences in anatomic stage IIB (p = 0.011), but survival differences according to PP stages were not observed in anatomic stage IIA, IIIA, or IIIC. PP stages were found to have prognostic value with respect to OS and DFS for luminal (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001), HER2-positive (p = 0.001 and p = 0.013), and triple-negative (p = 0.008 and p = 0.03) subtypes. The prognostic staging system proposed in the eighth edition of the AJCC more accurately predicts the clinical outcomes of BC patients than the traditional anatomic staging system.

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.

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.

Background: The American Joint Commission Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual 8th edition introduced a breast cancer (BC) Prognostic Stage (PS) that combines tumour grade, oestrogen (ER), progesterone (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor-2 (HER2) receptor status with Anatomic TNM Stage (AS). In a further modification, patients with early BC and an Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score (RS) < 11 are assigned to PS 1A irrespective of grade and size up to 5 cm. This study profiles the impact of these changes on staging in patients with early BC and RS < 11. Methods: A total of 127 patients, with primary BC and RS < 11, were identified from a consecutive series of 729 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative, primary BC whose tumours were tested using the Oncotype DX® 21 multigene assay. Each patient was assigned AS, PS, and RS-modified PS, and staging categories were compared. Results: Applying AS, 100 patients were stage IA and 27 IIA. Applying PS, 89 were stage IA, 33 IB, 4 IIA, and 1 IIB. All patients were IA according to RS-modified PS. Comparing PS to AS, 26.7% of patients (n = 34) changed stage, 9.4% (n = 12) to a higher and 17.3% (n = 22) to a lower stage. RS-modified PS versus AS resulted in downstaging in 21.3% (n = 27). Comparing PS modified by RS to PS alone, 29.9% (n = 38) were downstaged. Conclusion: Application of PS and RS-modified PS results in tumour downstaging in approximately 20% of patients with early BC. Upstaging was observed in 9% of patients when staged according to PS and was primarily due to the impact of high histological grade.

This retrospective study examined the relationship between the standardized uptake value max (SUVmax) of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) and the prognostic stage of breast cancer. We examined 358 breast cancers in 334 patients who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT for initial staging between January 2016 and December 2019. We extracted data including SUVmax of 18F-FDG PET and pathological biomarkers, including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and nuclear grade. Anatomical and prognostic stages were determined per the American Joint Committee on Cancer (eighth edition). We examined whether there were statistical differences in SUVmax between each prognostic stage. The mean SUVmax values for clinical prognostic stages were as follow: stage 0, 2.2 ± 1.4; stage IA, 2.6 ± 2.1; stage IB, 4.2 ± 3.5; stage IIA, 5.2 ± 2.8; stage IIB, 7.7 ± 6.7; and stage III + IV, 7.0 ± 4.5. The SUVmax values for pathological prognostic stages were as follows: stage 0, 2.2 ± 1.4; stage IA, 2.8 ± 2.2; stage IB, 5.4 ± 3.6; stage IIA, 6.3 ± 3.1; stage IIB, 9.2 ± 7.5, and stage III + IV, 6.2 ± 5.2. There were significant differences in mean SUVmax between clinical prognostic stage 0 and ≥II (p < 0.001) and I and ≥II (p < 0.001). There were also significant differences in mean SUVmax between pathological prognostic stage 0 and ≥II (p < 0.001) and I and ≥II (p < 0.001). In conclusion, mean SUVmax increased with all stages up to prognostic stage IIB, and there were significant differences between several stages. The SUVmax of 18F-FDG PET/CT may contribute to prognostic stage stratification, particularly in early cases of breast cancers.

Background The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging has introduced prognostic stage based on anatomic stage combined with biologic factors. We aimed to validate the prognostic stage in HER2-positive breast cancer patients enrolled in the ShortHER trial. Methods The ShortHER trial randomized 1253 HER2-positive patients to 9 weeks or 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab combined with chemotherapy. Patients were classified according to the anatomic and the prognostic stage. Distant disease-free survival (DDFS) was calculated from randomization to distant relapse or death. Results A total of 1244 patients were included. Compared to anatomic stage, the prognostic stage downstaged 41.6% ( n  = 517) of patients to a more favorable stage category. Five-year DDFS based on anatomic stage was as follows: IA 96.6%, IB 94.1%, IIA 92.4%, IIB 87.3%, IIIA 81.3%, IIIC 70.5% ( P  < 0.001). Five-year DDFS according to prognostic stage was as follows: IA 95.7%, IB 91.4%, IIA 86.9%, IIB 85.0%, IIIA 77.6%, IIIC 67.7% ( P  < 0.001). The C index was similar (0.69209 and 0.69249, P  = 0.975). Within anatomic stage I, the outcome was similar for patients treated with 9 weeks or 1 year trastuzumab (5-year DDFS 96.2% and 96.6%, P  = 0.856). Within prognostic stage I, the outcome was numerically worse for patients treated with 9 weeks trastuzumab (5-year DDFS 93.7% and 96.3%, P  = 0.080). Conclusions The prognostic stage downstaged 41.6% of patients, while maintaining a similar prognostic performance as the anatomic stage. The prognostic stage is valuable in counseling patients and may serve as reference for a clinical trial design. Our data do not support prognostic stage as guidance to de-escalate treatment. Trial registration EUDRACT number: 2007-004326-25; NCI ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00629278 .

•cT1/cT2 and Stage I/II grouping is feasible to predict a different pT-category after RP.•cT1/cT2 and Stage I/II grouping is feasible to predict a favorable WHO-grade after RP.•Prognostic Stage Groups incorporate PSA and WHO grade into T-Category.•Only Prognostic Stage Groups predicted a different Biochemical Free Survival.•Prognostic Stage Groups are useful to help clinicians in advising their patients. According to the 8th-edition of the tumor-nodes-metastasis-classification localized prostate cancer (PCa) can be divided into two categories (cT1,cT2), two stages (SI,SII), and, by incorporating prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) and WHO-grade (Gleason-Score), into prognostic stage groups (PSG I,IIA,IIB,IIC,III). We examined the predictive value of these systems for an organ-confined disease (pT≤2), favorable WHO-grade ≤2 (Gleason-score ≤7a), and biochemical-free-survival (BFS) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Data were collected in a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter health-service-research study for the treatment of localized PCa (HAROW) with 687 patients receiving RP. Mean Follow-up was 31.7 months. Organ-confined disease was present in 76.5% and 63.6% of cT1 and cT2 patients, 75.7% and 59.6% of SI and SII, and 84.6%, 81.6%, 72.8% and 42.5% of PSG I, IIA, IIB and ≥ IIC (p = 0.001). Favorable WHO-grade (Gleason-Score) was present in 75.4% and 60.7% of cT1 and cT2 patients, 74.3% and 56.5% of SI and SII patients, and 86.1%,85.6%,73.3% and 29.5% of PSG I, IIA, IIB and ≥ IIC (p = 0.001). Probability of BFS was 92.0% and 91.5% for cT1 and cT2 (p = 0.990), 91.1% and 94.2% for SI and S II (p = 0.286) and 96.6%,95.1%,91.4% and 78.8% for PSG I,IIA,IIB and ≥ IIC (p = 0.001). CT 1/cT2 and S I/II subgrouping is feasible to predict a different pT-category and a favorable WHO-grade (Gleason-Score) after RP, but failed to predict a different BFS. With the additional information of WHO-grade (Gleason-Score) and PSA, the PSG represents an approach for the prediction of all examined endpoints which is a useful tool to help clinicians to advise their patients.