An evaluation of prognostic factors and tumor staging of resected carcinoma of the esophagus

被引:217
作者
Wijnhoven, Bas P. L.
Tran, Khe T. C.
Esterman, Adrian
Watson, David I.
Tilanus, Hugo W.
机构
[1] Flinders Univ S Australia, Dept Surg, Flinders Med Ctr, Bedford Pk, SA 5042, Australia
[2] Erasmus MC, Dept Surg, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Univ S Australia, Dept Biostat, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.sla.0000251703.35919.02
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To evaluate prognostic factors and tumor staging in patients after esophagectomy for cancer, Summary Background Data: Several reports have questioned the appropriateness of the sixth edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM guidelines for staging esophageal cancer. Additional pathologic characteristics, besides the 3 basic facets of anatomic spread (tumor, node, metastases), might also have prognostic value. Methods: All patients who underwent resection of the esophagus for carcinoma between January 1995 and March 2003 were extracted from a prospective database. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. The goodness of fit and accuracy of 3 staging models (UICC-TNM, Korst classification, Rice classification) predicting survival were assessed. Results: A total of 292 patients (mean age, 63 years) underwent esophagectomy. The 5-year overall survival rate was 29% (median, 21 months). pT-, pN-, pM-stage, and radicality of the resection were independent prognostic factors. Subdivision of T1 tumors into mucosal and submucosal showed significant differences in 5-year survival between both groups: 90% versus 47%, respectively (P = 0.01). Subdivision of pN-stage into 3 groups based on the number of positive nodes (0, 1-2, and > 3 nodes positive) or the lymph node ratio (0, 0.01-0.2, and > 0.2) also refined staging (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The current subclassification of M1 (M1a and M1b) is not warranted (P = 0.41). The staging model of Rice was more accurate than the UICC-TNM classification in predicting survival. Conclusion: This study supports the view that the current (6th edition) UICC-TNM staging model for esophageal cancer needs to be revised.
引用
收藏
页码:717 / 725
页数:9
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2002, TNM CLASSIFICATION M
[2]
A time-dependent discrimination index for survival data [J].
Antolini, L ;
Boracchi, P ;
Biganzoli, E .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2005, 24 (24) :3927-3944
[3]
Brücher BLDM, 2001, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V92, P2228, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(20011015)92:8<2228::AID-CNCR1567>3.0.CO
[4]
2-4
[5]
Prediction of appropriateness of local endoscopic treatment for high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma by EUS and histopathologic features [J].
Buskens, CJ ;
Westerterp, M ;
Lagarde, SM ;
Bergman, JJGHM ;
ten Kate, FJW ;
van Lanschot, JJB .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2004, 60 (05) :703-710
[6]
M1A/M1B esophageal carcinoma: Clinical relevance [J].
Christie, NA ;
Rice, TW ;
DeCamp, MM ;
Goldblum, JR ;
Adelstein, DJ ;
Zuccaro, G ;
Rybicki, LA ;
Blackstone, EH .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 1999, 118 (05) :900-906
[7]
Comparison of old and new TNM systems for nodal staging in adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction [J].
de Manzoni, G ;
Pedrazzani, C ;
Verlato, G ;
Roviello, F ;
Pasini, F ;
Pugliese, R ;
Cordiano, C .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2004, 91 (03) :296-303
[8]
Lymph node involvement in esophageal adenocarcinoma: If you see one, have you seen them all? [J].
DeMeester, SR .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2003, 126 (04) :947-949
[9]
Prognostic factors for the survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma in the US - The importance of tumor length and lymph node status [J].
Eloubeidi, MA ;
Desmond, R ;
Arguedas, MR ;
Reed, CE ;
Wilcox, CM .
CANCER, 2002, 95 (07) :1434-1443
[10]
Clinicopathologic analysis of lymph node metastasis in surgically resected superficial cancer of the thoracic esophagus [J].
Endo, M ;
Yoshino, K ;
Kawano, T ;
Nagai, K ;
Inoue, H .
DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2000, 13 (02) :125-129