HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kameyama, K. Articles by Okumura, N. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Kameyama, K. Articles by Okumura, N. Related Collections Lung - cancer

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;137:1180-1184
© 2009 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

General Thoracic Surgery

Evaluation of the new TNM staging system proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer at a single institution

^a Department of Thoracic Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
^b Department of Thoracic Surgery, Tenriyorozu Hospital, Nara, Japan

Received for publication June 10, 2008; revisions received August 18, 2008; accepted for publication September 12, 2008.

^_* Address for reprints: Kotaro Kameyama, MD, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan. (Email: kk8724{at}kchnet.or.jp).

Objective: The seventh TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours will be published in 2009. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has proposed a revision of the current pathologic staging system. We illustrated the effects of this new system and pointed out potential problems using a retrospective study of surgical cases of non–small cell lung cancer at our institution.

Methods: Subjects were 1532 patients for whom current pathologic staging was possible. These data were migrated into the new staging system. The numbers of patients at various stages determined by using the current and new staging systems were, respectively, as follows: IA (n = 700, n = 700), IB (n = 338, n = 249), IIA (n = 49, n = 164), IIB (n = 129, n = 116), IIIA (n = 204, n = 234), IIIB (n = 77, n = 17), and IV (n = 35, n = 52). Prognoses were compared by using the current and the new systems.

Results: By using the new staging system, 5-year survivals by T classifications were as follows: T1a, 82.6%; T1b, 73.3%; T2a, 63.5%; T2b, 50.1%; T3, 40.6%; and T4, 34.6%. There were significant differences between the new T1a and T1b (P = .0026), T1b and T2a (P = .0027), and T2a and T2b (P = .0062) classifications. In the current system 5-year survivals based on pathologic stages were as follows: IA, 84.8%; IB, 72.9%; IIA, 53.8%; IIB, 53.7%; IIIA, 31.8%; IIIB, 34.0%; and IV, 27.1%. There were significant differences between stages IA and IB (P < .0001) and stages IIB and IIIA (P = .0006). In the new system these were as follows: IA, 84.8%; IB, 75.2%; IIA, 62.4%; IIB, 52.1%; IIIA, 32.4%; IIIB, 15.2%; and IV, 30.6%. There were significant differences between stages IA and IB (P = .0004), IB and IIA (P = .0195), IIA and IIB (P = .0257), IIB and IIIA (P = .0040), and IIIA and IIIB (P = .0399).

Conclusion: Although the outcomes for stages IIIB and IV were reversed, the new pathologic staging system was considered valid based on our single-institution evaluation.