Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Aug;47(8):2182-2188. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.03.252. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
The updated 8th version of the AJCC-staging system for soft tissue sarcomas (STS) has been criticised for omitting tumour depth as category-defining variable and eventually not improving prognostic accuracy in comparison to the 7th version. This study aimed at investigating the prognostic accuracy of both AJCC-versions in STS-patients treated at European tertiary sarcoma centres.
1032 patients (mean age: 60.7 ± 16.3 years; 46.0% [n = 475] females; median follow-up: 38.6 months), treated at five tertiary sarcoma centres for localised, intermediate or high-grade STS of extremities and trunk were retrospectively included. Uni- and multivariate Cox-regression models and Harrell's C-indices were calculated to analyse prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and assess prognostic accuracy.
In univariate analysis, prognostic accuracy for OS was comparable for both AJCC-versions (C-index: 0.620 [8th] vs. 0.614 [7th]). By adding margins, age, gender, and histology to the multivariate models, prognostic accuracy of both versions could be likewise improved (C-index: 0.714 [8th] vs. 0.705 [7th]). Moreover, tumour depth did not significantly contribute to prognostic accuracy of the 8th version's multivariate model (C-index for both models: 0.714). Stratification into four main T-stages based on tumour size only, as implemented in the 8th version, significantly improved prognostic accuracy between each category. However, T-stages as defined in the 7th version had poorer discriminatory power (C-index: 0.625 [8th] vs. 0.582 [7th]).
Both AJCC-versions perform equally well regarding prognostic accuracy. Yet, simplification of the 8 version by omitting tumour depth as T-stage-defining parameter, whilst emphasizing the importance of tumour size, should be considered advantageous.
软组织肉瘤(STS)的第 8 版 AJCC 分期系统已被批评为忽略了肿瘤深度作为分类定义变量,并且与第 7 版相比最终并未提高预后准确性。本研究旨在调查在欧洲三级肉瘤中心治疗的 STS 患者中,这两个 AJCC 版本的预后准确性。
回顾性纳入了 5 家三级肉瘤中心治疗的 1032 名局部、中间或高级别肢体和躯干 STS 患者,这些患者的平均年龄为 60.7 ± 16.3 岁,46.0%(n=475)为女性,中位随访时间为 38.6 个月。使用单变量和多变量 Cox 回归模型和 Harrell's C 指数分析总生存(OS)的预后因素,并评估预后准确性。
在单变量分析中,两种 AJCC 版本的 OS 预后准确性相当(C 指数:0.620 [第 8 版] vs. 0.614 [第 7 版])。通过将边缘、年龄、性别和组织学添加到多变量模型中,两种版本的预后准确性也可以得到提高(C 指数:0.714 [第 8 版] vs. 0.705 [第 7 版])。此外,肿瘤深度对第 8 版多变量模型的预后准确性没有显著贡献(两个模型的 C 指数均为 0.714)。仅根据肿瘤大小将肿瘤分为四个主要 T 期,如第 8 版中实施的那样,可显著改善每个类别之间的预后准确性。然而,第 7 版中定义的 T 期具有较差的区分能力(C 指数:0.625 [第 8 版] vs. 0.582 [第 7 版])。
两种 AJCC 版本在预后准确性方面表现相当。然而,通过省略肿瘤深度作为 T 期定义参数来简化第 8 版,同时强调肿瘤大小的重要性,应该被认为是有利的。