Advertisement

Overview of the 8th Edition TNM Classification for Head and Neck Cancer

  • Shao Hui Huang
  • Brian O’SullivanEmail author
Head and Neck Cancer (L Licitra, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Head and Neck Cancer

Opinion Statement

The main purpose of the TNM system is to provide an anatomic-based classification to adequately depict cancer prognosis. Accurate cancer staging is important for treatment selection and outcome prediction, research design, and cancer control activities. To maintain clinical relevance, periodical updates to TNM are necessary. The recently published 8th edition TNM classification institutes the following changes to the staging of head and neck (excluding thyroid cancer): new stage classifications [HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC) and soft tissue sarcoma of the head and neck (HN-STS)] and modification of T and N categories [T and N categories for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), T categories for oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC), N categories for non-viral related head and neck cancer and unknown primary (CUP), and T categories for head and neck cutaneous carcinoma]. These changes reflect better understanding tumor biology and clinical behavior (e.g., HPV+ OPC and HN-STS), improved outcomes associated with technical advances in diagnosis and treatment (e.g., NPC), evolving knowledge about additional prognostic factors and risk stratification from research and observation (e.g., inclusion of depth of invasion variable for OSCC, inclusion of extranodal extension variable for all non-viral head and neck cancer, and reintroduction of size criteria for non-Merkel cell cutaneous carcinoma of the head and neck). This review summarizes the changes and potential advantages and limitations/caveats associated with them. Further evidence is needed to evaluate whether these changes would result in improvement in TNM stage performance to better serve the needs for clinical care, research, and cancer control.

Keywords

Head and neck cancer TNM Stage classification AJCC UICC 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    The Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). TNM history, evolution and milestones. In. http://www.uicc.org/sites/main/files/private/History_Evolution_Milestones_0.pdf: The Union for International Cancer Control (UICC).
  2. 2.
    American Joint Committee for Cancer Staging and End-Results Reporting (AJC). Manual for staging of cancer 1977. American Joint Committee on Cancer 1977.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sobin LH, Brierley J, Gospodarowicz M, et al. Principles of cancer staging. In: O'Sullivan B, Brierley J, D'Cruz A, et al., editors. UICC manual of clinical oncology. 9th ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2015. p. 34–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gospodarowicz MK, Miller D, Groome PA, et al. The process for continuous improvement of the TNM classification. Cancer. 2004;100:1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brierley J, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C. UICC TNM classification of malignant tumours. Eighth ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2017.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. New York: Springer; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O'Sullivan B. Head and neck tumours. In: Brierley J, Gospodarowicz M, Ch W, et al., editors. UICC TNM classification of Malignant Tumours. Eighth ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2017. p. 17–54.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O'Sullivan B, Lydiatt W, Haughey BH, et al. HPV-mediated (p16+) oropharyngeal cancer. In: Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O'Sullivan B. Tumours of bone and soft tissues. In: Brierley J, Gospodarowicz M, Ch W, et al., editors. UICC TNM classification of malignant tumours. Eighth ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2017. p. 119–30.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O'Sullivan B, Maki RG, Agulnik M, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma of the head and neck. In: Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel S, Lydiatt W, Ridge J, et al. Cervical lymph nodes and unknown primary tumors of the head and neck. In: Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. Swizerland: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee A, Lydiatt W, Colevas AD, et al. Nasopharynx. In: Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 103–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ridge JA, Lydiatt W, Patel SG, et al. Lip and oral cavity. In: Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Califano JA, Lydiatt W, Nehal KS, et al. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In: Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee A, Brierley J, O'Sullivan B. Skin Tumours. In Brierley J, Gospodarowicz M, Ch W et al. (eds): UICC TNM classification of malignant tumours, Eighth Edition. Chichester Wiley 2017; 131–150.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• O'Sullivan B, Huang SH, Su J, et al. Development and validation of a staging system for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer by the International Collaboration on Oropharyngeal cancer Network for Staging (ICON-S): a multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:440–51. A large multicenter study proposed clinical TNM classification for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer which was adopted by the 8th edition TNM Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Haughey BH, Sinha P, Kallogjeri D, et al. Pathology-based staging for HPV-positive squamous carcinoma of the oropharynx. Oral Oncol. 2016;62:11–9. A large multicenter study proposed pathologic TNM classification for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer which was adopted by the 8th edition TNM Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dahlstrom KR, Calzada G, Hanby JD, et al. An evolution in demographics, treatment, and outcomes of oropharyngeal cancer at a major cancer center: a staging system in need of repair. Cancer. 2013;119:81–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Huang SH, Xu W, Waldron J, et al. Refining American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control TNM stage and prognostic groups for human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:836–45. A large single institution cohort study proved the hypothesis that new staging classification is needed and feasible. It also provided the methodology for deriving TNM and evaluation criteria of TNM performanceCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Straetmans JM, Olthof N, Mooren JJ, et al. Human papillomavirus reduces the prognostic value of nodal involvement in tonsillar squamous cell carcinomas. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:1951–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malm IJ, Fan CJ, Yin LX et al. Evaluation of proposed staging systems for human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer 2017.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Husain ZA, Chen T, Corso CD et al. A comparison of prognostic ability of staging systems for human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. JAMA Oncol 2016.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dahlstrom KR, Garden AS, William WN Jr, et al. Proposed staging system for patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer based on nasopharyngeal cancer N categories. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1848–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Sinha P, Kallogjeri D, Gay H, et al. High metastatic node number, not extracapsular spread or N-classification is a node-related prognosticator in transorally-resected, neck-dissected p16-positive oropharynx cancer. Oral Oncol. 2015;51:514–20. A large surgical series showing the importance of pathologic lymph node number for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancerCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sinha P, Lewis JS Jr, Piccirillo JF, et al. Extracapsular spread and adjuvant therapy in human papillomavirus-related, p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. 2012;118:3519–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sinha P, Lewis JS Jr, Kallogjeri D, et al. Soft tissue metastasis in p16-positive oropharynx carcinoma: prevalence and association with distant metastasis. Oral Oncol. 2015;51:778–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    El-Naggar AK, Westra WH. p16 expression as a surrogate marker for HPV-related oropharyngeal carcinoma: a guide for interpretative relevance and consistency. Head Neck. 2012;34:459–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ndiaye C, Mena M, Alemany L, et al. HPV DNA, E6/E7 mRNA, and p16INK4a detection in head and neck cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1319–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomas J, Primeaux T. Is p16 immunohistochemistry a more cost-effective method for identification of human papilloma virus-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma? Ann Diagn Pathol. 2012;16:91–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mattavelli D, Miceli R, Radaelli S, et al. Head and neck soft tissue sarcomas: prognostic factors and outcome in a series of patients treated at a single institution. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2181–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park JT, Roh JL, Kim SO, et al. Prognostic factors and oncological outcomes of 122 head and neck soft tissue sarcoma patients treated at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:248–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Maxwell JH, Ferris RL, Gooding W, et al. Extracapsular spread in head and neck carcinoma: impact of site and human papillomavirus status. Cancer. 2013;119:3302–8. A single institution study showed differential impact of extranodal extension for cancer of oral cavity and oropharynxCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myers JN, Greenberg JS, Mo V, Roberts D. Extracapsular spread. A significant predictor of treatment failure in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Cancer. 2001;92:3030–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bernier J, Cooper JS, Pajak TF, et al. Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501). Head Neck. 2005;27:843–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Mermod M, Tolstonog G, Simon C, Monnier Y. Extracapsular spread in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Oncol. 2016;62:60–71. A single institution study showed differential impact of extranodal extension for cancer of oral cavity and oropharynxCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chai RL, Rath TJ, Johnson JT, et al. Accuracy of computed tomography in the prediction of extracapsular spread of lymph node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:1187–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu JT, Kann BH, De B, et al. Prognostic value of radiographic extracapsular extension in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. Oral Oncol. 2016;52:52–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gregoire V, Ang K, Budach W, et al. Delineation of the neck node levels for head and neck tumors: a 2013 update. DAHANCA, EORTC, HKNPCSG, NCIC CTG, NCRI, RTOG, TROG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol. 2014;110:172–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    •• Pan JJ, Ng WT, Zong JF, et al. Proposal for the 8th edition of the AJCC/UICC staging system for nasopharyngeal cancer in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Cancer. 2016;122:546–58. A multicenter study proposed modified TNM classification for nasopharyngeal carcinoma which was adopted by 8th edition TNM Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peng H, Guo R, Chen L, et al. Prognostic impact of plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated using intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Sci Rep. 2016;6:22000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang L, Tang LQ, Chen QY, et al. Plasma Epstein-Barr viral DNA complements TNM classification of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Oncotarget. 2016;7:6221–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lin JC, Wang WY, Chen KY, et al. Quantification of plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2461–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Leung SF, Chan AT, Zee B, et al. Pretherapy quantitative measurement of circulating Epstein-Barr virus DNA is predictive of posttherapy distant failure in patients with early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma of undifferentiated type. Cancer. 2003;98:288–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sun P, Chen C, Cheng YK, et al. Serologic biomarkers of Epstein-Barr virus correlate with TNM classification according to the seventh edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:2545–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guo R, Sun Y, Yu XL, et al. Is primary tumor volume still a prognostic factor in intensity modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma? Radiother Oncol. 2012;104:294–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu Z, Zeng RF, Su Y, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Head Neck. 2013;35:689–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wu Z, Gu MF, Zeng RF, et al. Correlation between nasopharyngeal carcinoma tumor volume and the 2002 International Union Against Cancer tumor classification system. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mucke T, Kanatas A, Ritschl LM, et al. Tumor thickness and risk of lymph node metastasis in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Oral Oncol. 2016;53:80–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pinto FR, de Matos LL, Palermo FC, et al. Tumor thickness as an independent risk factor of early recurrence in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:1747–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Huang SH, Hwang D, Lockwood G, et al. Predictive value of tumor thickness for cervical lymph-node involvement in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a meta-analysis of reported studies. Cancer. 2009;115:1489–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    O'Brien CJ, Lauer CS, Fredricks S, et al. Tumor thickness influences prognosis of T1 and T2 oral cavity cancer—but what thickness? Head Neck. 2003;25:937–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    •• Ebrahimi A, Gil Z, Amit M, et al. Primary tumor staging for oral cancer and a proposed modification incorporating depth of invasion: an international multicenter retrospective study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140:1138–48. A large multicenter study demonstrated the importance of depth of invasion for oral cavity cancer and proposed the cutoff for T classification, which was adopted by 8th edition TNM Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Madana J, Laliberte F, Morand GB, et al. Computerized tomography based tumor-thickness measurement is useful to predict postoperative pathological tumor thickness in oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44:49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goel V, Parihar PS, Parihar A, et al. Accuracy of MRI in prediction of tumour thickness and nodal stage in oral tongue and gingivobuccal cancer with clinical correlation and staging. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:TC01–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schmults CD, Karia PS, Carter JB, et al. Factors predictive of recurrence and death from cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a 10-year, single-institution cohort study. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149:541–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brantsch KD, Meisner C, Schonfisch B, et al. Analysis of risk factors determining prognosis of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma: a prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:713–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Roozeboom MH, Lohman BG, Westers-Attema A, et al. Clinical and histological prognostic factors local recurrence and metastasis of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: analysis of a defined population. Acta Derm Venereol. 2013;93:417–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Clayman GL, Lee JJ, Holsinger FC, et al. Mortality risk from squamous cell skin cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:759–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jambusaria-Pahlajani A, Kanetsky PA, Karia PS, et al. Evaluation of AJCC tumor staging for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and a proposed alternative tumor staging system. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149:402–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation Oncology, The Princess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations