These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: An evaluation of prognostic factors and tumor staging of resected carcinoma of the esophagus.
    Author: Wijnhoven BP, Tran KT, Esterman A, Watson DI, Tilanus HW.
    Journal: Ann Surg; 2007 May; 245(5):717-25. PubMed ID: 17457164.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]