Abstract
Background
The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification has introduced two new parameters: depth of invasion (DOI) and extranodal extension (ENE). The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether this 8th edition referred to oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) offers performance superior to that of the 7th edition in relation to overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).
Material and Methods
The review was carried out following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched covering the period up until April 7th, 2022.
Results
Thirteen retrospective cohort studies were finally included. The introduction of DOI and ENE in the 8th edition of the AJCC classification resulted in improved prognostic performance of the classification.
Conclusions
Patients with OSCC can be better classified in relation to OS and DSS, while maintaining the simplicity and ease of use of the classification. This allows more appropriate treatment protocols to be applied and affords a better estimation of the prognosis of each patient.
Key words:TMN Staging, AJCC8, squamous cell carcinoma, oral cancer, prognosis.
Introduction
Lip, oral cavity and pharyngeal cancers were responsible for 292,300 deaths worldwide in 2012, accounting for 3.8% of all cancers and 3.6% of all cancer deaths (1). Similar Figures were subsequently published in 2018 (3.1% and a 2.8 %, respectively) (2). The incidence of these tumors may vary depending on variables such as geographical location, sex and age of the patients, and the presence of specific toxic habits such as betel consumption (1).
More than 90% of all oral cavity cancers are squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs) and present a mortality rate of close to 50%. The most frequent location is the tongue (3). Other less frequent malignancies of the oral cavity are lymphomas, malignant salivary neoplasms, sarcomas, malignant odontogenic neoplasms and melanomas (4).
The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor staging manual, published in 2017 (5), is an abridgement of all available information on adult cancer staging for all relevant anatomical locations. The TNM classification plays an important role in the clinical study, research, registration and control of cancer. It has been widely used, because it helps to determine the prognosis, plan treatment better, and evaluate the results after treatment (6).
The most important changes in the 8th edition of the AJCC classification referred to oral cancer are the addition of depth of invasion (DOI) and extranodal extension (ENE) as modifying factors for categories T and N, respectively, and the elimination of classification T0 (7). This new manual emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between tumor thickness and DOI, and stipulates the use of this parameter to improve the prognostic accuracy of T staging in OSCC. Specifically, DOI assesses the invasiveness of OSCC independently of any exophytic or ulcerative components. This factor was not contemplated in the 7th edition of the AJCC classification, and was finally included in the current edition due to consensus-based agreement that tumors of greater thickness or DOI are associated to a higher risk of nodal metastasis and to poorer survival outcomes (8). On the other hand, ENE is defined as the extension of metastatic carcinoma in the lymph node through its capsule and into the surrounding connective tissue, regardless of the existence of an associated stromal reaction (5). This factor has also been added in the new edition, since it has been related to a poorer prognosis in patients with OSCC (9).
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the prognostic performance of the 8th edition of the AJCC classification compared to the 7th edition, in relation to overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).
Material and Methods
This systematic review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (10).
The aim of the study was defined through the following PICO (patient intervention comparison outcome) question: “In patients diagnosed with OSCC, does the 8th edition of the AJCC classification offer better prognostic performance in relation to 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) than the 7th edition?”
The inclusion criteria were: randomized clinical trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies comparing both editions in classifying patients diagnosed with OSCC. Studies in which the data extraction was not possible, studies including less than 10 patients, case series and case reports were excluded. No language or publication date restrictions were applied.
Two independent reviewers (M.C.E.P., A.S.T.) carried out an electronic search of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library databases covering the period up until April 7th, 2022. The search strategy used was: (("OSCC"[All Fields] OR ((("mouth"[MeSH Terms] OR "mouth"[All Fields]) OR "oral"[All Fields]) AND ((("carcinoma, squamous cell"[MeSH Terms] OR (("carcinoma"[All Fields] AND "squamous"[All Fields]) AND "cell"[All Fields])) OR "squamous cell carcinoma"[All Fields]) OR (("squamous"[All Fields] AND "cell"[All Fields]) AND "carcinoma"[All Fields])))) AND (("7th"[All Fields] OR ("8th"[All Fields] AND (("edition"[All Fields] OR "edition s"[All Fields]) OR "editions"[All Fields]))) OR ("am j clim change"[Journal] OR "ajcc"[All Fields]))) AND ((((((((((("mortality"[MeSH Subheading] OR "mortality"[All Fields]) OR "survival"[All Fields]) OR "survival"[MeSH Terms]) OR "survivability"[All Fields]) OR "survivable"[All Fields]) OR "survivals"[All Fields]) OR "survive"[All Fields]) OR "survived"[All Fields]) OR "survives"[All Fields]) OR "surviving"[All Fields]) OR (("prognosis"[MeSH Terms] OR "prognosis"[All Fields]) OR "prognoses"[All Fields])).
A manual search was made of articles published during the last 5 years in the following journals: Head and Neck, Oral Oncology, International Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, International Journal of Cancer and Annals of Surgical Oncology. In addition, the references of the included studies were checked in order to detect all relevant articles.
The selection of the studies was initially made by reading the titles and abstracts, followed by full-text assessment to decide final eligibility. A third author (C.G.E.) resolved any disagreement. The inter-examiner agreement was calculated by means of Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) (11) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, data extracted from the included studies were synthesized in Table format.
Results
From the initial 778 articles identified by the electronic search, 36 studies were selected for full-text assessment. Of these, 23 studies (12-34) were excluded due to the reasons shown in the flowchart (Fig. 1), which reflects the selection process of the studies during the systematic review. Thirteen articles (35-47) were finally included in the qualitative analysis, all of them being retrospective cohort studies. No additional articles were included from the manual search. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0.8045. According to the NOS scale (11), all the included articles were rated as being of high quality (35-47).
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of the screening process of articles for the review.
Table 1 shows the analyzed studies and the characteristics of the participants. Six studies were conducted at university hospitals (35,38,43,46,47), one in a private hospital (37), two in public or non-profit hospitals (44,45), one in both public and private hospitals (48), and three of them did not specify where the study was carried out (41,42,46). Of the total 85,434 patients, 52,082 (61%) were male and 33,352 (39%) females. In terms of location, 26,548 (31.1%) cases were located on the tongue; 9,277 (10.9%) on the gingiva, alveolar ridge or retromolar trigone; 9,638 (11.3%) on the floor of the mouth; 4,010 (4.7%) on the buccal mucosa; 1,707 (4.7%) on the hard palate; 4,821 (5.6%) on the lips, and 1,712 (2%) in other locations - though not all studies cited the affected location. The treatment of patients was likewise not cited by all authors. A total of 59,743 (69.9%) patients were treated by surgery alone; 16,945 (19.8%) received surgical treatment and adjuvant treatment in the form of radiotherapy, chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy; and 4,981 (5.8%) patients received chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy or brachytherapy alone. The follow-up time was highly variable and difficult to compare between studies, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Study and participants’ characteristics. All are retrospective cohort studies.
Table 2 and Table 3 show the OS and DSS of patients included by T and N classification according to the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC classification. On comparing OS in patients who remained in the same T or N classification versus those who were upstaged to another classification, several studies (35,40,41) reported poorer OS and DSS (35,41) among patients classified at a higher classification. In contrast, Lee et al. (39) recorded an increase in OS in most groups. On the other hand, studies comparing classifications separately found similar or better data referred to OS and DSS in T and N classifications in the 8th edition compared to the 7th edition (36,38,42,45-47).
Table 2. 5-year overall survival by T and N 7th and 8th edition AJCC groups.
Table 3. 5-year disease specific survival by T and N 7th and 8th edition AJCC groups.
Discussion
The overall results of the present study show that the new edition of the AJCC classification allows the choice of more correct treatment protocols and a better estimation of the prognosis in patients who previously were possibly undertreated - since an increase in classification is indicative of a poor prognosis, and such patients thus can receive more aggressive treatment to improve their survival.
From the publication of the first edition of the AJCC classification, the oral cavity and lips chapter experienced no significant changes up until the 6th edition of the classification (2002), where T4 lesions were divided into T4a (resecTable tumor) and T4b (unresecTable tumor) - resulting in the division of prognostic classification IV into classifications IVA, IVB and IVC. On the other hand, this edition did not include non-epithelial tumors such as those originating in soft tissue, lymphatic tissue, bone and cartilage. In the 7th edition (8), and in addition to the tumors excluded in the 6th edition, staging for melanoma of the mucosa of the lip and oral cavity was likewise not contemplated. The division of T4 classification remained in place, but T4a classification was defined as moderately advanced local disease, and T4b as very advanced local disease, likewise leading to the stratification of prognostic stage IV into IVA (moderately advanced local/regional disease), IVB (very advanced local/regional disease) and IVC (distant metastatic disease). Changes were then made to this classification with the aim of adapting to the need to classify patients correctly and thus facilitate an adequate treatment protocol and correct estimation of the prognosis - these being aspects that are maintained in the current edition of the classification (5).
The results of our systematic review show that most of the analyzed studies recorded poorer OS and DSS in patients who progressed to a higher T, N or prognostic stage than in those who remained in the same stage. On the other hand, patients showed similar or better OS or DSS when comparing the T, N or prognostic stage of the 8th edition versus the 7th edition.
The fact that only studies reporting survival rates at 5 years follow-up were included means that some articles had to be excluded, even if they could provide reliable data. However, the included studies involved similar methodology and their outcomes were compared at the same follow-up time, and this constitutes an important advantage. Another limitation of this study is that Lee et al. (39) and Cramer et al. (37) do an analysis on the same database. They show a difference between inclusion criteria of the patients: Lee et al. (39) only included patients that underwent definitive surgery, had not incomplete staging information and did not have metastasis; and Cramer et al. (37) include all patients. This is probably why they reach different conclusions.
Patients with similar OSCC classification may respond differently and have a different prognosis after receiving the same treatment, probably because the 7th edition of the classification and the conventional histopathological classification of tumors fail to predict the prognosis accurately, particularly in low-risk patients, despite being simple and consistent (35,46). The 8th edition of the AJCC classification, being the first to incorporate microscopic data in the staging of head and neck cancer, has attempted to address these problems by introducing the variables DOI and ENE. The fact that neither DOI nor ENE were included in the 7th edition (8) could imply that patients may have been incorrectly staged - with the consequent risk of under- or over-treatment.
Depth of invasion (DOI) assesses the invasiveness of OSCC independently of any exophytic or ulcerative component. To measure DOI, we must identify the line that marks the basement membrane of the adjacent mucosa. Once this is done, the distance from the mentioned line to the deepest point of invasion of the tumor millimeters (in mm) is measured by means of a perpendicular line. The second parameter (ENE) can be clinical or histopathological. Clinical ENE is defined as the extension of metastatic carcinoma in the lymph node through its capsule into the surrounding connective tissue, regardless of the existence of an associated stromal reaction. On the other hand, histopathological ENE can be assessed microscopically (ENEmi) or macroscopically (ENEma). The former is defined as extranodal extension visible to the naked eye at the time of dissection, while ENEmi is defined as microscopic extension over 2 mm beyond the capsule of the lymph node. If either of these two conditions is observed, the nodal status is indicated as positive (ENE+) (5).
In 2014, Ebrahimi et al. (48) proposed a modification for the 7th edition of the AJCC classification, after publishing a retrospective cohort study in which a statistically significant association was found between increased DOI and more advanced disease, including higher T and N classifications, extracapsular spread, and infiltrated margins. Thus, they proposed the incorporation of DOI into category T of the classification, which was later adopted by the AJCC classification in its 8th edition (5).
Many studies have also shown an increased DOI to be associated to an increased risk of neck lymph node metastases, and therefore to a poorer prognosis as well as to the presence of ENE (9). Similarly, Shaw et al. (49) found extracapsular nodal spread to be the most adverse histological predictor of disease recurrence in OSCC. Likewise, Wreesmann et al. (50) suggested that this scenario proves clinically relevant when extension exceeds 1.7 mm beyond the nodal capsule. Tirelli et al. (46) considered DOI to be an independent prognostic factor for survival, and reported significantly poorer DSS when DOI > 10 mm. In the same way, Matos et al. (41) found that patients with DOI > 10 mm suffered a higher prevalence of locoregional recurrence and distant metastases.
Most of the studies included in this systematic review found that the 8th edition of the AJCC classification increased the stage of many patients as a result of the new incorporations (ENE and DOI), in terms of T, N or prognostic stages, and that these individuals were therefore more correctly classified (35-41,43-46).
As shown by the results of the present review, the included articles obtained similar values for OS and DSS. Studies analyzing the new edition, comparing patients who were classified into a higher stage versus those who remained in the same group, found the former to have poorer survival (35,40,41,44). In particular, Almangush et al. (29) in a systematic review and metaanalysis published in 2021 found similar results as the current study: common upstaging of cases and good risk stratification of AJCC 8th edition for OSCC, which can change treatment planning of patients. On the other hand, authors comparing OS and DSS presenting data for each T, N or prognostic stage according to the 7th and 8th editions of the classification recorded higher survival rates using the latest edition (35-38,42,43,45-47). Therefore, the results obtained in this systematic review indicate that the 8th edition of the AJCC classification improves upon the previous edition in terms of prognosis (OS and DSS) among the T, N and prognostic stages.
Conclusions
The introduction of the variables DOI and ENE in the 8th edition of the AJCC classification results in improved prognostic performance of the classification. Patients with OSCC can be better classified in relation to OS and DSS, while maintaining the simplicity and ease of use of the classification. This allows more appropriate treatment protocols to be applied, with a better estimation of the prognosis of each patient.
Acknowledgments
Ackcnowledgements This study was conducted by the research group "Dental and Maxillofacial Pathology and Therapeutics" of the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL).
Ethics Prof. Dr. Gay-Escoda participated in the design of the study, the interpretation of the results and the correction of the manuscript. Dr. Sánchez-Torres participated in the preparation of the study, in the analysis of the results and in the writing of the manuscript. Dra. Erazo-Puentes participated in the preparation of the study, in the analysis of the results and in the writing of the manuscript. Dr. Aguirre-Urizar participated in the interpretation of the results and the correction of the manuscript. Dr. Bara-Casaus participated in the interpretation of the results and the correction of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest The authors deny any conflict of interest related to this study.
Funding This research has not received any specific funding from public, commercial, or non-profit sector funding agencies.
References
- 1.Shield KD, Ferlay J, Jemal A, Sankaranarayanan R, Chaturvedi AK, Bray F. The global incidence of lip, oral cavity, and pharyngeal cancers by subsite in 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:51–64. doi: 10.3322/caac.21384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Dyba T, Randi G, Bettio M. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018. Eur J Cancer. 2018;103:356–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kato MG, Baek C H, Chaturvedi P, Gallagher R, Kowalski LP, Leemans CR. Update on oral and oropharyngeal cancer staging - International perspectives. World J Otorhinolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2020;6:66–75. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2019.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rivera C. Essentials of oral cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8:11884–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ridge JA, Lydiatt WM, Patel SG, Glastonbury CM, Brandwein-Gensler M, Ghossein RA. Oral cavity. In: Amin MB, editor. AJCC cancer staging manual 8th ed. Chicago: Springer. 2017:79–101. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Takes RP, Rinaldo A, Silver CE, Piccirillo JF, Haigentz M, Suárez C. Future of the TNM classification and staging system in head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2010;32:1693–711. doi: 10.1002/hed.21361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Huang SH, O'Sullivan B. Overview of the 8th edition TNM classification for head and neck cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2017;18:40. doi: 10.1007/s11864-017-0484-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kozak MM, Shah J, Chen M, Schaberg K, von Eyben R, Chen JJ. Depth of invasion alone as a prognostic factor in low-risk early-stage oral cavity carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:2082–86. doi: 10.1002/lary.27753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Suton P, Salaric I, Granic M, Mueller D, Luksic I. Prognostic significance of extracapsular spread of lymph node metastasis from oral squamous cell carcinoma in the clinically negative neck. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:669–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.02.1277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Tugwell P. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta‐analyses. 3rd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics. 2000;Oxford. UK [Google Scholar]
- 12.Liao CT, Lee LY, Hsueh C, Lin CY, Fan KH, Wang HM. Clinical outcomes in pT4 tongue carcinoma are worse than in pT3 Disease: How extrinsic muscle invasion should be considered? Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2570–9. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5906-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Liao CT, Lee LY, Hsueh C, Lin CY, Fan KH, Wang HM. Pathological risk factors stratification in pN3b oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Focus on the number of positive nodes and extranodal extension. Oral Oncol. 2018;86:188–94. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Liao CT, Lee LY, Hsueh C, Lin CY, Fan KH, Wang HM. Tumor depth of invasion (tumor > 4 cm/depth > 10 mm and depth > 20 mm) and through cortex/skin invasion are both valid criteria for classifying tumors as pT4a in AJCC 2018 oral cavity cancer staging system. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3663–72. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07576-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Moeckelmann N, Ebrahimi A, Dirven R, Liu J, Low THH, Gupta R. Analysis and comparison of the 8th edition american joint committee on cancer (AJCC) nodal staging system in cutaneous and oral squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:1730–6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6340-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Moeckelmann N, Ebrahimi A, Tou YK, Gupta R, Low THH, Ashford B. Prognostic implications of the 8th edition american joint committee on cancer (AJCC) staging system in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2018;85:82–6. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Subramaniam N, Clark JR, Goldstein D, de Almeida J, Ali Abdalaty AH, Balasubramanian D. Stage pN3a in oral cancer: A redundant entity? Oral Oncol. 2020;110:104815. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dhar H, Agarwal J. Depth of invasion in early oral cancers: is it an independent prognostic factor? J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:6058. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.03.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Harada H, Tomioka H, Yokokawa M, Nojima H, Komiya R, Kayamori K. Depth of invasion (DOI) introduced in uicc 8th T classification in tongue carcinoma-evaluation of histopathological DOI and clinical DOI in consideration of shrinkage rate of the specimen. Japanese J Head Neck Cancer. 2019;45:1–7. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hirshoren N, Weinberger JM, Eliashar R. Head and neck malignancies classification, the 8th edition of the american joint committee on cancer - What is new? Harefuah. 2020;159:132–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Almangush A, Mäkitie AA, Mäkinen LK, Kauppila JH, Pukkila M, Hagström J. Small oral tongue cancers (≤ 4 cm in diameter) with clinically negative neck: from the 7th to the 8th edition of the american joint committee on cancer. Virchows Arch. 2018;473:481–7. doi: 10.1007/s00428-018-2417-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Almangush A, Salo T. The 8th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC8) Staging Manual: any improvement in the prognostication of oral tongue cancer? Chin Clin Oncol. 2019;8:S8. doi: 10.21037/cco.2018.12.04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dang RR, Qureshi MM, Caldroney SJ, Salama AR, Truong MT. Recategorization of tumor stage in patients with node-negative oral tongue cancer: Impact of the eighth edition american joint committee staging system. Head Neck. 2019;41:2976–82. doi: 10.1002/hed.25785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Dirven R, Ebrahimi A, Moeckelmann N, Palme CE, Gupta R, Clark J. Tumour thickness versus depth of invasion - Analysis of the 8th edition american joint committee on cancer staging for oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2017;74:30–33. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Farquhar DR, Coniglio AJ, Masood MM, Lenze N, Brennan P, Anantharaman D. Evaluation of pathologic staging using number of nodes in p16-negative head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2020;108:104800. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.García J, López M, López L, Bagué S, Granell E, Quer M. Validation of the pathological classification of lymph node metastasis for head and neck tumors according to the 8th edition of the TNM classification of malignant tumors. Oral Oncol. 2017;70:29–33. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Jain D, Dravid C, Singla A, Kumari S, Grover RK. Comparison of the seventh and eighth editions of the american joint committee on cancer pT and pN classifications as predictors of survival in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2019;151:292–301. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqy143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Mattavelli D, Ferrari M, Taboni S, Morello R, Paderno A, Rampinelli V. The 8th TNM classification for oral squamous cell carcinoma: What is gained, what is lost, and what is missing. Oral Oncol. 2020;111:104937. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Almangush A, Pirinen M, Youssef O, Mäkitie AA, Leivo I. Risk stratification in oral squamous cell carcinoma using staging of the eighth american joint committee on cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2020;42:3002–17. doi: 10.1002/hed.26344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Riju J, George NA, Krishna J. AJCC 8th versus AJCC 7th as a prognostic indicator in buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2020;14:228–33. doi: 10.1007/s13193-020-01116-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.McGoldrick DM, Torres-Rendon A, Sandhu R, Walton G. Validation of the UICC 8th edition staging of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in a UK cohort. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;59:76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Jawad H, Ashaari SS, O'Shea R, Callanan D, Sheahan P, Feeley L. Prognostic performance of TNM8 staging rules in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2020;111:105021. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sambasivan K, Sassoon I, Thavaraj S, Kennedy R, Doss G, Michaelidou A. TNM 8 staging is a better prognosticator than TNM 7 for patients with locally advanced oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma treated with surgery and post-operative radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2021;160:54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.McGoldrick DM, Torres-Rendon A, Sandhu R, Walton G. Validation of the UICC 8th edition staging of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in a UK cohort. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;59:76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Amit M, Tam S, Takahashi H, Choi KY, Zafereo M, Bell D. Prognostic performance of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition of the TNM staging system in patients with early oral tongue cancer. Head Neck. 2019;41:1270–6. doi: 10.1002/hed.25553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Boeve K, Melchers LJ, Schuuring E, Roodenburg JL, Halmos GB, van Dijk BA. Addition of tumour infiltration depth and extranodal extension improves the prognostic value of the pathological TNM classification for early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology. 2019;75:329–37. doi: 10.1111/his.13886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Cramer JD, Reddy A, Ferris RL, Duvvuri U, Samant S. Comparison of the seventh and eighth edition american joint committee on cancer oral cavity staging systems. Laryngoscope. 2018;128:2351–60. doi: 10.1002/lary.27205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kano S, Sakashita T, Tsushima N, Mizumachi T, Nakazono A, Suzuki T. Validation of the 8th edition of the AJCC/UICC TNM staging system for tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018;23:844–50. doi: 10.1007/s10147-018-1276-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Lee NCJ, Eskander A, Park HS, Mehra S, Burtness BA, Husain Z. Pathologic staging changes in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Stage migration and implications for adjuvant treatment. Cancer. 2019;125:2975–83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Mascitti M, Rubini C, De Michele F, Balercia P, Girotto R, Troiano G. American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system 7th edition versus 8th edition: any improvement for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;126:415–23. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.07.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Matos LL, Dedivitis RA, Kulcsar MAV, de Mello ES, Alves VAF, Cernea CR. External validation of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition, in an independent cohort of oral cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2017;71:47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.05.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Murthy S, Low T HH, Subramaniam N, Balasubramanian D, Sivakumaran V, Anand A. Validation of the eighth edition AJCC staging system in early T1 to T2 oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2019;119:449–54. doi: 10.1002/jso.25348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Pollaers K, Hinton-Bayre A, Friedland PL, Farah CS. AJCC 8th edition oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma staging - is it an improvement on the AJCC 7th edition? Oral Oncol. 2018;82:23–8. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Singhavi HR, Chakrabarti S, Singh A, Mair M, Bhattacharjee A, Shetty R. Comparison of the seventh and eighth editions american joint committee cancer classification system in oral cavity squamous cell cancers. Int J Cancer. 2020;146:3379–84. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Subramaniam N, Murthy S, Balasubramanian D, Low T HH, Vidhyadharan S, Clark JR. Adverse pathologic features in T1/2 oral squamous cell carcinoma classified by the american joint committee on cancer eighth edition and implications for treatment. Head Neck. 2018;40:2123–28. doi: 10.1002/hed.25168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Tirelli G, Gatto A, Boscolo Nata F, Bussani R, Piccinato A, Marcuzzo AV. Prognosis of oral cancer: A comparison of the staging systems given in the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56:8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Vuity D, McMahon J, Takhiuddin S, Slinger C, McLellan D, Wales C. Is the 8th edition of the union for international cancer control staging of oral cancer good enough? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56:272–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Ebrahimi A, Gil Z, Amit M, Yen TC, Liao CT, Chaturvedi P. Primary tumour 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. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Shaw RJ, Lowe D, Woolgar JA, Brown JS, Vaughan ED, Evans C. Extracapsular spread in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2010;32:714–22. doi: 10.1002/hed.21244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Wreesmann VB, Katabi N, Palmer FL, Montero PH, Migliacci JC, Gonen M. Influence of extracapsular nodal spread extent on prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2016;38:1192–9. doi: 10.1002/hed.24190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]