A National-Level Validation of the New American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Subclassification of Stage IIA and B Anal Squamous Cell Cancer

  • Paolo Goffredo
  • Mattia Garancini
  • Timothy J. Robinson
  • Jessica Frakes
  • Hisakazu Hoshi
  • Imran Hassan
Colorectal Cancer
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) updated the staging system of anal squamous cell cancer (ASCC) by subdividing stage II into A (T2N0M0) and B (T3N0M0) based on a secondary analysis of the RTOG 98-11 trial. We aimed to validate this new subclassification utilizing two nationally representative databases.

Materials

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) [2004–2014] and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database [1988–2013] were queried to identify patients with stage II ASCC.

Results

A total of 6651 and 2579 stage IIA (2–5 cm) and 1777 and 641 stage IIB (> 5 cm) patients were identified in the NCDB and SEER databases, respectively. Compared with stage IIB patients, stage IIA patients within the NCDB were more often females with fewer comorbidities. No significant differences were observed between age, race, receipt of chemotherapy and radiation, and mean radiation dose. Demographic, clinical, and pathologic characteristics were comparable between patients in both datasets. The 5-year OS was 72% and 69% for stage IIA versus 57% and 50% for stage IIB in the NCDB and SEER databases, respectively (p < 0.001). After adjustment for available demographic and clinical confounders, stage IIB was significantly associated with worse survival in both cohorts (hazard ratio 1.58 and 2.01, both p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study validates the new AJCC subclassification of stage II anal cancer into A and B based on size (2–5 cm vs. > 5 cm) in the general ASCC population. AJCC stage IIB patients represent a higher risk category that should be targeted with more aggressive/novel therapies.

Notes

Disclosures

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Nelson RA, Levine AM, Bernstein L, Smith DD, Lai LL. Changing Patterns of Anal Canal Carcinoma in the United States. Journal of clinical oncology. 2013;31(12):1569-1575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Cancer Stat Facts: Anal Cancer. 2017. Accessed 31 Jul 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glynne-Jones R, Nilsson PJ, Aschele C, et al. Anal cancer: ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Radiother Oncol. 2014;111(3):330–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greene FL, Sobin LH. The staging of cancer: a retrospective and prospective appraisal. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(3):180–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    AJCC. American Joint Committee on Cancer Manual for Staging of Cancers. 3rd ed. AJCC; 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amin MB ES, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al. Prognostic factors derived from a prospective database dictate clinical biology of anal cancer: the intergroup trial (RTOG 98-11). Cancer. 2010;116(17):4007–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Cancer Data Base. 2014. Accessed May 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, Shanmugarathnam K, Sobin L, Parkin DM, Whelan S. International classification of disease for oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Cancer Society. AJCC staging system of anal cancer. 2017. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/anal-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/staging.html. Accessed May 2017.
  11. 11.
    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER registries. 2017. Accessed 1 Nov 2017.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gunderson LL, Winter KA, Ajani JA, et al. Long-term update of US GI intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase III trial for anal carcinoma: survival, relapse, and colostomy failure with concurrent chemoradiation involving fluorouracil/mitomycin versus fluorouracil/cisplatin. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(35):4344–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gunderson LL, Moughan J, Ajani JA, et al. Anal carcinoma: impact of TN category of disease on survival, disease relapse, and colostomy failure in US Gastrointestinal Intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase 3 trial. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(4):638–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2017. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site. Accessed May 2017.
  15. 15.
    Geltzeiler CB, Nabavizadeh N, Kim J, et al. Chemoradiotherapy with a radiation boost for anal cancer decreases the risk for salvage abdominoperineal resection: analysis from the national cancer data base. Ann surg oncol. 2014;21(11):3616–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glynne-Jones R, Lim F. Anal cancer: an examination of radiotherapy strategies. Int j Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(5):1290–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harlan LC, Hankey BF. The surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results program database as a resource for conducting descriptive epidemiologic and clinical studies. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(12):2232–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winchester DP, Stewart AK, Phillips JL, Ward EE. The national cancer data base: past, present, and future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(1):4–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMonzaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyH. Lee Moffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations