Explore the vast range of titles available.

Whether surgical axillary staging as part of breast-conserving therapy can be omitted without compromising survival has remained unclear. In this prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial, we investigated the omission of axillary surgery as compared with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with clinically node-negative invasive breast cancer staged as T1 or T2 (tumor size, ≤5 cm) who were scheduled to undergo breast-conserving surgery. We report here the per-protocol analysis of invasive disease-free survival (the primary efficacy outcome). To show the noninferiority of the omission of axillary surgery, the 5-year invasive disease-free survival rate had to be at least 85%, and the upper limit of the confidence interval for the hazard ratio for invasive disease or death had to be below 1.271. A total of 5502 eligible patients (90% with clinical T1 cancer and 79% with pathological T1 cancer) underwent randomization in a 1:4 ratio. The per-protocol population included 4858 patients; 962 were assigned to undergo treatment without axillary surgery (the surgery-omission group), and 3896 to undergo sentinel-lymph-node biopsy (the surgery group). The median follow-up was 73.6 months. The estimated 5-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 91.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.9 to 93.5) among patients in the surgery-omission group and 91.7% (95% CI, 90.8 to 92.6) among patients in the surgery group, with a hazard ratio of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin. The analysis of the first primary-outcome events (occurrence or recurrence of invasive disease or death from any cause), which occurred in a total of 525 patients (10.8%), showed apparent differences between the surgery-omission group and the surgery group in the incidence of axillary recurrence (1.0% vs. 0.3%) and death (1.4% vs. 2.4%). The safety analysis indicates that patients in the surgery-omission group had a lower incidence of lymphedema, greater arm mobility, and less pain with movement of the arm or shoulder than patients who underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy. In this trial involving patients with clinically node-negative, T1 or T2 invasive breast cancer (90% with clinical T1 cancer and 79% with pathological T1 cancer), omission of surgical axillary staging was noninferior to sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after a median follow-up of 6 years. (Funded by the German Cancer Aid; INSEMA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02466737.).

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a \"population-based\" to a more \"personalized\" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as \"what's new\" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an illness strongly influenced by sex and gender, with mortality rates in males significantly higher than females. There is still a dearth of understanding on where sex differences exist along the pathway from presentation to survival. The aim of this review is to identify where actions are needed to improve outcomes for both sexes, and to narrow the gap for CRC. Methods A cross-sectional review of national data was undertaken to identify sex differences in incidence, screening uptake, route to diagnosis, cancer stage at diagnosis and survival, and their influence in the sex differences in mortality. Results Overall incidence is higher in men, with an earlier age distribution, however, important sex differences exist in anatomical site. There were relatively small differences in screening uptake, route to diagnosis, cancer staging at diagnosis and survival. Screening uptake is higher in women under 69 years. Women are more likely to present as emergency cases, with more men diagnosed through screening and two-week-wait. No sex differences are seen in diagnosis for more advanced disease. Overall, age-standardised 5-year survival is similar between the sexes. Conclusions As there are minimal sex differences in the data from routes to diagnosis to survival, the higher mortality of colorectal cancer in men appears to be a result of exogenous and/or endogenous factors pre-diagnosis that lead to higher incidence rates. There are however, sex and gender differences that suggest more targeted interventions may facilitate prevention and earlier diagnosis in both men and women.

New to the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual for epithelial cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction are separate, temporally related cancer classifications: 1) before treatment decision (clinical); 2) after esophagectomy alone (pathologic); and 3) after preresection therapy followed by esophagectomy (postneoadjuvant pathologic). The addition of clinical and postneoadjuvant pathologic stage groupings was driven by a lack of correspondence of survival, and thus prognosis, between both clinical and postneoadjuvant pathologic cancer categories (facts about the cancer) and pathologic categories. This was revealed by a machine-learning analysis of 6-continent data from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration, with consensus of the AJCC Upper GI Expert Panel. Survival is markedly affected by histopathologic cell type (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma) in clinically and pathologically staged patients, requiring separate stage grouping for each cell type. However, postneoadjuvant pathologic stage groups are identical. For the future, more refined and granular data are needed. This requires: 1) more accurate clinical staging; 2) innovative solutions to pathologic staging challenges in endoscopically resected cancers; 3) integration of genomics into staging; and 4) precision cancer care with targeted therapy. It is the responsibility of the oncology team to accurately determine and record registry data, which requires eliminating both common errors and those related to incompleteness and inconsistency. Despite the new complexity of eighth edition staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction, these key concepts and new directions will facilitate precision cancer care.

Comparative assessment of treatment results in paediatric hepatoblastoma trials has been hampered by small patient numbers and the use of multiple disparate staging systems by the four major trial groups. To address this challenge, we formed a global coalition, the Children's Hepatic tumors International Collaboration (CHIC), with the aim of creating a common approach to staging and risk stratification in this rare cancer. The CHIC steering committee—consisting of leadership from the four major cooperative trial groups (the International Childhood Liver Tumours Strategy Group, Children's Oncology Group, the German Society for Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, and the Japanese Study Group for Paediatric Liver Tumours)—created a shared international database that includes comprehensive data from 1605 children treated in eight multicentre hepatoblastoma trials over 25 years. Diagnostic factors found to be most prognostic on initial analysis were PRETreatment EXTent of disease (PRETEXT) group; age younger than 3 years, 3–7 years, and 8 years or older; α fetoprotein (AFP) concentration of 100 ng/mL or lower and 101–1000 ng/mL; and the PRETEXT annotation factors metastatic disease (M), macrovascular involvement of all hepatic veins (V) or portal bifurcation (P), contiguous extrahepatic tumour (E), multifocal tumour (F), and spontaneous rupture (R). We defined five clinically relevant backbone groups on the basis of established prognostic factors: PRETEXT I/II, PRETEXT III, PRETEXT IV, metastatic disease, and AFP concentration of 100 ng/mL or lower at diagnosis. We then carried the additional factors into a hierarchical backwards elimination multivariable analysis and used the results to create a new international staging system. Within each backbone group, we identified constellations of factors that were most predictive of outcome in that group. The robustness of candidate models was then interrogated using the bootstrapping procedure. Using the clinically established PRETEXT groups I, II, III, and IV as our stems, we created risk stratification trees based on 5 year event-free survival and clinical applicability. We defined and adopted four risk groups: very low, low, intermediate, and high. We have created a unified global approach to risk stratification in children with hepatoblastoma on the basis of rigorous statistical interrogation of what is, to the best of our knowledge, the largest dataset ever assembled for this rare paediatric tumour. This achievement provides the structural framework for further collaboration and prospective international cooperative study, such as the Paediatric Hepatic International Tumour Trial (PHITT). European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents, funded through the Framework Program 7 of the European Commission (grant number 261474); Children's Oncology Group CureSearch grant contributed by the Hepatoblastoma Foundation; Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control and Project Promoting Clinical Trials for Development of New Drugs and Medical Devices, Japan Agency for Medical Research; and Swiss Cancer Research grant.

Patients with melanoma and positive sentinel nodes were randomly assigned to completion lymph-node dissection or observation. Melanoma-specific survival did not differ significantly between the groups. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is a standard procedure in the care of appropriately selected patients with melanoma. The first Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-I) confirmed the value of early nodal evaluation and treatment. 1 – 3 This prospective, international, randomized trial showed that the pathologic status of the sentinel node or nodes was the most important prognostic factor and that patients who underwent sentinel-node biopsy had fewer recurrences of melanoma than patients who underwent wide excision and nodal observation. Among patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (defined as 1.2 to 3.5 mm) and nodal metastases, early surgical treatment, guided by sentinel-node biopsy, was associated with increased . . .

Background Current processes collecting cancer stage data in population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) lack standardisation, resulting in difficulty utilising diverse data sources and incomplete, low-quality data. Implementing a cancer staging tiered framework aims to improve stage collection and facilitate inter-PBCR benchmarking. Objective Demonstrate the application of a cancer staging tiered framework in the Western Australian Cancer Staging Project to establish a standardised method for collecting cancer stage at diagnosis data in PBCRs. Methods The tiered framework, developed in collaboration with a Project Advisory Group and applied to breast, colorectal, and melanoma cancers, provides business rules – procedures for stage collection. Tier 1 represents the highest staging level, involving complete American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumour–node–metastasis (TNM) data collection and other critical staging information. Tier 2 (registry-derived stage) relies on supplementary data, including hospital admission data, to make assumptions based on data availability. Tier 3 (pathology stage) solely uses pathology reports. Findings The tiered framework promotes flexible utilisation of staging data, recognising various levels of data completeness. Tier 1 is suitable for all purposes, including clinical and epidemiological applications. Tiers 2 and 3 are recommended for epidemiological analysis alone. Lower tiers provide valuable insights into disease patterns, risk factors, and overall disease burden for public health planning and policy decisions. Capture of staging at each tier depends on data availability, with potential shifts to higher tiers as new data sources are acquired. Conclusions The tiered framework offers a dynamic approach for PBCRs to record stage at diagnosis, promoting consistency in population-level staging data and enabling practical use for benchmarking across jurisdictions, public health planning, policy development, epidemiological analyses, and assessing cancer outcomes. Evolution with staging classifications and data variable changes will futureproof the tiered framework. Its adaptability fosters continuous refinement of data collection processes and encourages improvements in data quality.

Introduction FIGO 2018 IIIC remains controversial for the heterogeneity of its prognoses. To ensure a better management of cervical cancer patients in Stage IIIC, a revision of the FIGO IIIC version classification is required according to local tumor size. Material and methods We retrospectively enrolled cervical cancer patients of FIGO 2018 Stages I–IIIC who had undergone radical surgery or chemoradiotherapy. Based on the tumor factors from the Tumor Node Metastasis staging system, IIIC cases were divided into IIIC‐T1, IIIC‐T2a, IIIC‐T2b, and IIIC‐(T3a+T3b). Oncologcial outcomes of all stages were compared. Results A total of 63 926 cervical cancer cases were identified, among which 9452 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Kaplan–Meier pairwise analysis showed that: the oncology outcomes of I and IIA were significantly better than of IIB, IIIA+IIIB, and IIIC; the oncology outcome of IIIC‐(T1‐T2b) was significantly better than of IIIA+IIIB and IIIC‐(T3a+T3b); no significant difference was noted between IIB and IIIC‐(T1‐T2b), or IIIC‐(T3a+T3b) and IIIA+IIIB. Multivariate analysis indicated that, compared with IIIC‐T1, Stages T2a, T2b, IIIA+IIIB and IIIC‐(T3a+T3b) were associated with a higher risk of death and recurrence/death. There was no significant difference in the risk of death or recurrence/death between patients with IIIC‐(T1‐T2b) and IIB. Also, compared with IIB, IIIC‐(T3a+T3b) was associated with a higher risk of death and recurrence/death. No significant differences in the risk of death and recurrence/death were noted between IIIC‐(T3a+T3b) and IIIA+IIIB. Conclusions In terms of oncology outcomes of the study, FIGO 2018 Stage IIIC of cervical cancer is unreasonable. Stages IIIC‐T1, T2a, and T2b may be integrated as IIC, and it might be unnecessary for T3a/T3b cases to be subdivided by lymph node status. FIGO 2018 Stage IIIC of cervical cancer is unreasonable. Stages IIIC‐T1, T2a, and T2b may be integrated as IIC.

Objectives The 9th edition of the lung cancer tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system downgrades certain non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from stage IIIA (T1N2) to IIB(T1N2a). This study aimed to externally validate this stage adjustment. Methods Consecutive resected stage IIB and IIIA (the 9th edition of lung cancer TNM staging manual) NSCLC patients were included. Stage IIB was divided into groups A, B, and C according to lymph node involvement. Group A, patients who having single-station N2 without N1 involvement; Group B, patients who having single-station N2 with N1 involvements; Group C, patients who having station N1 involvement or N0. The stage IIIA patients divided into Group D. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method, with propensity score matching (PSM) employed to mitigate potential biases. COX regression models were utilized to assess prognostic differences. Results 224 stage IIB and 227 stage IIIA cases was included. There were 38, 66 and 120 patients in the Group A, B and C, respectively. Univariate COX analysis indicated comparable prognoses between the Group A and Group C patients, whereas Group B patients exhibited poorer outcomes. Upon combining the Group A and Group C patients, multivariate COX analysis demonstrated a significantly worse prognosis for Group B patients compared to those with Group A + C patients (OS, P  = 0.035; DFS, P  = 0.021). Further comparisons between Group B and Group D patients, following PSM analysis, indicated similar survivals (OS: P  = 0.390; DFS: P  = 0.210). Conclusion In the 9th edition of the lung cancer TNM staging system, the prognosis of stage IIB N2a2 patients was worse than that of remaining stage IIB patients but comparable to that of stage IIIA patients. We proposed that stage IIB N2a2 patients should be maintained as stage IIIA.

BackgroundThe tumor location-modified Lauren classification (mLC) has been proposed recently, but its clinical significance remains under debate. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical relevance of mLC and evaluate its superiority to the Lauren classification (LC) for gastric cancer patients with gastrectomy.MethodsThis study retrospectively evaluated 2764 consecutive gastric cancer patients from three comprehensive medical institutions. The patients were categorized into training, inner-validation, and independent validation sets. The relationships between mLC and other clinicopathologic factors were analyzed, and independent prognostic factors were identified. Survival prognostic discriminatory ability and predictive accuracy were compared between mLC and LC using the concordance index (C-index) and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), and a nomogram based on mLC was constructed to compare its prognostic improvement with the tumor-node metastasis (TNM) staging system.ResultsA significant association between mLC and gender, age, histologic type, T stage, N stage, and M stage was found. The findings showed that mLC, not LC, is an independent prognostic factor, with a smaller AIC and a higher C-index than LC. The nomogram based on mLC showed a better predictive ability than TNM alone.ConclusionsCompared with LC, mLC, which could be considered a more reliable prognostic factor, may improve the prognostic discriminatory ability and predictive accuracy for gastric cancer patients with gastrectomy.