Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of Medicine and Surgery logoLink to Annals of Medicine and Surgery
. 2022 Feb 25;75:103411. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103411

Revisiting the 8th AJCC system for gastric cancer: A review on validations, nomograms, lymph nodes impact, and proposed modifications

Geofrey Mahiki Mranda a,b, Ying Xue a, Xing-Guo Zhou a, Wang Yu a, Tian Wei a, Zhi-Ping Xiang a, Jun-Jian Liu a, Yin-Lu Ding a,∗
PMCID: PMC8977912  PMID: 35386808

Abstract

Gastric cancer is the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide, behind breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancers. In gastric cancer, multimodality treatment shows prospective benefits and also improves survival. Surgery, however, is the mainstay of curative treatment. The staging of gastric cancer patients is critical for harmonization of care. Accurate stages assure that informed clinical decisions are timely made. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system is the most widely applied system in to determine the disease's prognosis and survival prediction. The recently adopted 8th AJCC TNM staging system has been revised to enhance its survival predictive power. Subsequent studies have established the validity of the current edition, demonstrating improved stage stratification, discriminatory power, and survival prediction. However, other studies have cast doubt on the superiority of the new edition. Innovations aimed at further improving its prognosis have resulted in developing of novel models. Advances in our understanding of the tumor microenvironment and molecular categorization of cancer have resulted in proposals for their inclusion in TNM staging as potential complementary factors that enhance survival prediction and prognostic assessment ability. The purpose of this study is to conduct a review of the published literature regarding the validity of the 8th AJCC TNM staging system, proposed modifications, and nomograms.

Keywords: 8th AJCC staging System, Validations, Nomograms, Proposed modifications, Gastric cancer

Highlights

  • •

    The 8th AJCC is valid in prognostic stratification of gastric cancer, however, revisions are still required.

  • •

    The yPT staging requires some modifications and inclusion of stages that currently don't exist in the 8th AJCC.

  • •

    High lymph nodes count and anatomical localization improve the prediction ability of the current AJCC.

  • •

    Nomograms comprising of individual prognostic factors are crucial to the current AJCC.

  • •

    Molecular markers positively influence survival prediction of gastric cancer.

1. Introduction

After breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer, gastric cancer is the fifth most frequently diagnosed type of cancer worldwide. It is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally [1]. Staging is a critical component of care and treatment, and its accuracy and consistency enable caregivers to make informed decisions regarding their patients’ care [2,3]. It also simplifies the process of evaluating therapy response. Accordingly, the International Union for Cancer Control/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC/AJCC) has the broadest global adoption for assessing the prognosis and management of gastric cancer patients [4]. The staging manual is based on the Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system. This tool has undergone several changes in the past decades to improve its prognostic performance [4,5].

The 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging manual came as a modification of the 7th edition [6]. Following its publication in 2010, the 7th edition of the manual drew criticism for its stratification ability, lack of uniformity within subclasses of the same stage, and questionable reproducibility [[7], [8], [9], [10]]. Consequently, modifications were made in the 8th edition to mitigate shortcomings of the 7th edition, which included dividing the pN3 stage into pN3a and pN3b and adjusting subgroup staging [4]. Subsequent studies affirmed the improved prognostic prediction and stratification of the 8th edition over the 7th [2,6]. Others, however, failed to replicate these findings and concluded that the two systems performed similarly in terms of prognostic performance [11]. Regional disparities in surgical practice significantly impact the necessity of subgroup adjustments. In the Eastern countries, the common standard practice is D2 lymphadenectomy, whereas the Western countries adopt a much more limited lymph node dissection [[12], [13], [14]].

Furthermore, the 8th AJCC TNM staging system introduced staging for patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (ypTNM), and clinical TNM staging abbreviated as cTNM. Before the 8th edition, there was no official clinical staging system, and the pathologic staging was used instead without ascertained validity [15]. Additionally, the eighth edition clearly defined the esophagogastric junction and cardia cancer staging systems and redefined the tumor grading system. Analysis of a sizeable cohort of patients inferred these changes [16]. Despite improved accuracy, the work to further enhance the predictive power of the tool and its stratification has continued. The advances in molecular science and genomics have similarly led to the identification of specific markers that have a chance of enhancing the 8th edition's predictive power [17,18]. This study aims to review articles published on validations, modification on the TNM and ypTNM staging, and proposed tumor markers and molecular markers of cancer on the 8th AJCC TNM staging system. Concurrently, we aim to review publications on proposed nomograms, the impact of retrieved lymph node numbers as suggested by the manual, and the significance of lymph node ratio in prognostic separation and survival prediction since its first publication.

2. Validation of the 8th AJCC TNM staging system

Since its publication in 2016 and official inception in 2018, the 8th AJCC gastric cancer staging system has been validated for its prognostic applicability using parameters such as discriminatory ability and model fitness, monotonicity, and homogeneity. Accordingly, tests including the linear trend chi-square, likelihood ratio chi-square, Harrell's concordance index, Akaike information criterion (AIC), time-dependent receiver operating characteristics (t-ROC) curves, and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) have been employed. A higher Harrell's C-index value, log-rank test, or linear trend chi-square test defined a better discriminative ability and monotonicity. In contrast, smaller AIC values were preferred for improved prognostic separation [[19], [20], [21]].

Evidently, the new staging system was deemed more accurate in prognostication and uniform in segmentation of subgroups with the maintenance of group order [22,23]. A comparative study to the seventh edition revealed that the eighth edition was superior in predicting the overall survival of gastric cancer patients. Hence, it guides decision-making during the management of gastric cancer patients [24]. Other investigators observed similar findings [25,26]. The separation of pN3 provided stage III changes that minimized stage migration tendency.

Interestingly, the latest edition seems valid and applicable in predicting prognosis among patients with residual gastric cancer [27].Furthermore, Fang et al. reported a better homogeneity in the eighth version and noticed comparable prognostic performance between it and the seventh edition. The t-ROC curves in their study appeared to overlap during overall and disease-free survival assessment [28]. Moreover, a comparison of stage IIIB and IIIC in assessing the 5-year overall survival using the restaging system appeared to ameliorate survival rate discrimination [29,30]. However, the new edition isn't entirely superior, as other studies indicating comparable c-index values and similar long-term prognostic performance to previous editions [31,32].

Several modifications in the pTNM have been suggested to improve its discriminatory ability and prognostic stratification [[33], [34], [35]]. These propositions followed a wide variation in the median overall survival of patients at the same stage between different sub-classes, especially in stage III, and similar survival rates between stages IIIC and IV. The modified systems demonstrated good comparative values. For instance, Lin and colleagues noted that while assessing gastric cancer patients’ 10-year overall survival rate, merging stage IB and IIA produced an excellent prognostic staging tool over its counterpart [36]. Furthermore, Cao et al. recommended the incorporation of T4aN3bM0/T4bN3bM0 into stage IV as it led to a better separation of stages [37]. Additionally, Chen and colleagues suggested the incorporation of pT4aN0M0 into stage IIIA of the eighth AJCC staging system for a better prognostic stratification than when categorized as stage IIB [38].

2.1. Proposed modifications on the ypTNM stage of the 8th AJCC TNM staging

There are several perceived limitations in the predictive accuracy of the ypTNM stage, which include a lack of elaborated discrimination in its stages, a small number of patients and a short follow-up duration during its formulation, and the absence of a difference between the 8th edition ypTNM and the 7th edition AJCC system. Additionally, the absence of some categories in the ypTNM staging system has also been identified as a constraint that may limit its predictive accuracy in gastric cancer patients. Moreover, under-staging of gastric cancer has been ascribed to limited lymphadenectomy; thus, with extensive lymph node dissection (D2), the current ypTNM staging may not be accurate. Lastly, the staging system only divides non-metastatic gastric cancer patients’ post-neoadjuvant therapy into three stages (i.e., I-III) [25,[39], [40], [41]].

Lin and colleagues utilized the eighth staging system (I-III) to group their patients and classified complete pathological response as ypT0N0 or ypT0N + not included in the AJCC system. Patients included were those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The modified ypTNM system (I, II, IIIA&IIIB) had superior prognostic prediction than the eighth edition. Otherwise, their study appreciated the significance of the number of lymph nodes harvested [42]. These results were consistent with the observations from Li et al. during their assessment of overall survival rates of 1 and 3-years [43].

In a multicentre study by Zhong et al., a modified ypT stage (IA, IB, II, IIIA &IIIB) had a better discriminatory ability and predictive homogeneity when compared to the AJCC's ypTNM [40]. Additionally, Li et al. developed a modified ypTNM system that was superior to the original ypTNM with a higher c-index value. However, they recommended further detailed analysis, allowing subgroupings of each stage with better prognostic accuracy [44]. Nonetheless, the clinical utility of ypT stage remains questionable among node-negative gastric cancer patients as no improvement in survival was observed (ypT0-3N0M0) [45].

2.2. Proposed tumor markers and molecular markers for inclusion in the 8th AJCC edition or future revisions

Combining carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) has improved sensitivity without compromising specificity [46,47]. Accordingly, Lin and colleagues proposed incorporating CEA/CA19-9 levels into the AJCC TNM staging system following improved prognostic prediction outcomes among stage III gastric cancer patients at 1, 3, and 5-years. Multivariate analysis also identified it as an independent predictor of survival in AJCC stage III gastric cancer [48].

Singly, the impact of an immune factor on tumors diminishes due to the complex nature of the antitumor immune response. Correspondingly, Xing and colleagues using a novel protein-based prognostic classifier and five immune features, noted remarkable differences in the overall survival rate of high and low-risk groups. When this classifier was merged with age and pTNM staging, it had a more substantial prognostic value than pTNM alone. Thus, the authors concluded that the nomogram might be applicable in selecting patients who will gain from adjuvant chemotherapy [49]. Furthermore, Wen et al. proved a prognostic model using four Immunoscores (PD-L1+ immune cells (IC), PD-L1+ tumor cells (TC), PD-1hi, and CD8More) incorporated into TNM staging had better prognostic power than TNM alone and had potential among operable gastric cancer patients. These scores divided gastric cancer patients with similar stages into low, medium, and high-risk groups [50].

Similarly, Jiang and colleagues demonstrated that merging Immunoscores (CD3invasive margin (IM), CD3center of tumor (CT), CD8IM, CD45ROCT, and CD66bIM) and TNM staging produced an improved predictive tool than TNM alone. They suggested that the model may help identify stage II and III gastric cancer patients who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Investigators viewed the two systems as complementing the predictive ability of the TNM system [51]. Koh et al. established the association between PD-L1/CD8-based immune types and EBV+, MSI-H GCs, and illustrated their prognostic impact in stage II/III gastric cancer [52].

Recently, Yin and colleagues identified the CD144 gene as a useful prognostic indicator in assessing the risk of disease progression among stage III gastric cancer patients. In their study, the expression of CD144 led to expanded sub-classification of stage III into IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc. Further analysis revealed CD144 expression level was an independent predictor for disease-free survival, whereas Borrmann type and the level of CD144 expression were independent predictors of overall survival [53]. The 8th AJCC TNM suggests sapient inclusion of these markers in the staging [4].

2.3. Proposed nomograms

Some of the eighth AJCC's limitations during formulation include less number of lymph nodes dissected (limiting the applicability of the system in extended lymphadenectomies), absence of prognostic factors linked to individual survival such as age, tumor size, body mass index, and so on, and lack of markers of systemic inflammatory response [54,55]. Thus, several authors developed new tools or nomograms to mitigate the perceived constraints. A nomogram based on body mass index category, tumor location, T and N stages was reported to have a more refined prognostic accuracy when compared to the eighth AJCC [43]. Additionally, another nomogram based on log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) was more predictive of overall and cancer-specific survival for signet ring cell carcinoma than TNM staging alone [56]. Bando and colleagues devised a novel pre-treatment model that accurately predicted the overall survival in gastric cancer patients than AJCC TNM and recommended its use in patient counseling [57].

Furthermore, Wang et al. created an integrated nomogram that includes inflammatory markers, tumor markers (CEA&CA19-9), tumor characteristics, and certain proteins such as albumin. Their model had better predictive power and discriminatory ability than the AJCC TNM system [58]. Tumorigenesis initiates a complex cascade of immune and inflammatory reactions critical for tumor formation, invasion, growth, and progression [59]. Numerous reports on the significance of some indexes developed from these cells in determining prognosis exist in different fields [59,60]. Correspondingly, a nomogram based on systemic immune-inflammation index to predict survival among gastric cancer patients was reckoned superior to the available systems. Consequently, the authors recommended the model as authentic in predicting post-gastrectomy survival among gastric cancer patients [61].

Zheng and colleagues model's based clinicopathological data and independent prognostic risk factors affecting gastric (MA) NEC cancer had a remarkable predictive ability for 1, 3, and 5-year disease-free survival and recurrence patterns [62]. Furthermore, Lin and colleagues conceptualized the application of recursive partition analysis in the prognostic prediction of node-negative gastric cancer. The tool produced superior outcomes than the AJCC [63]. A nomogram based on T stage, N stage, comprehensive treatment, age at diagnosis, grade, and tumor size performs better in the individualized prediction of survival among patients with resectable disease, including stage III/IV patients [64].

3. Impact of retrieved lymph node number and lymph-node ratio in 8th AJCC staging

The 8th AJCC recommends examining at least 16 retrieved nodes for better staging, but when possible, ≥30 lymph nodes are preferred for accurate staging and prognosis determination. Correspondingly, examining ≥15 lymph nodes improved the prognostic power of the eighth AJCC in non-cardia gastric cancer patients [65]. Similarly, equipping the eighth AJCC with ≥15 examined lymph nodes while using the recursive partition analysis improved survival prediction ability [66]. Thus, it can be considered anything below 15 examined lymph nodes represents inadequacy of lymphadenectomy likely to reduce the quality of postoperative care. Nonetheless, a tumor-mode-ratio-metastasis system predicted survival more accurately than the eighth AJCC [67].

Interestingly, another study involving a more limited number of examined lymph nodes commended the accuracy of an adjusted 8th AJCC staging system based on examined lymph nodes (eLNs) which had a better prognostic separation. However, the investigators insisted on the significance of a higher number of lymph nodes required in assessing the 5-year overall survival among node-negative gastric cancer patients [68]. Otherwise, a re-classified N and TNM system predicted the 5-year survival more accurately than the eighth AJCC; thus, the model is deemed prognostically feasible in both a limited and adequate number of examined lymph nodes [69].

Many investigators recommend an increased number of lymph nodes during surgery to improve prognostic accuracy and minimize stage migration [[70], [71], [72]]. Consequently, investigators proposed that for accurate prognostic assessment, ≥16 examined lymph nodes for node-negative patients and >30 examined lymph nodes in node-positive patients were require [73]. Moreover, equipping the eighth AJCC with ≥30 eLNs improved prognostic accuracy among stage III gastric cancer patients after R0 resection. However, investigators of the latter study recommended an external validation of their results [6]. Likewise, the incorporation of 30eLNs into the eighth AJCC improved prognostic stratification [74]. For a selected group of gastric cancer patients (such as those aged>60 years, male in gender, who underwent total gastrectomy and had stage IIB gastric cancer disease), retrieval of ≥30 lymph nodes is associated with a better 5-year overall survival rate [75]. Otherwise, a tumor-ratio-metastasis system comprising 5 lymph node ratio categories had a more homogenous prognosis prediction than the eighth AJCC system [76].

Many researchers believe the anatomical location definition of lymph provides an optimal prognosis prediction. Accordingly, topographic localization of metastatic lymph nodes predicted the 5-year overall and disease-free survival better than the eighth AJCC [77]. Similarly, anatomic location-based node stations produce better prognostic stratification than the AJCC and Japanese Gastric Cancer Association system [78]. Otherwise, if retrieving ≥16 is deemed challenging, retrieval of >13 and > 9 lymph nodes at Group 1 and 2, respectively, provides a more accurate prognosis prediction and minimizes staging migration [79].

3.1. Other proposed modifications and inclusions in the 8th AJCC TNM staging system

Several potential additional factors can be adopted into the AJCC staging to enhance its prognostic performance. Correspondingly, splitting tumor stage pT2 according to the depth of infiltration of muscularis propria layer (i.e., pT2a & pT2b) yields more accurate prognostic evaluation for pT2 gastric cancer patients [80]. Shang et al. recommended judicious provision of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I gastric cancer patients as lymphovascular invasion was not an independent prognostic factor for stage I disease [81]. Interestingly, a study based on N0 patients with a much larger accrual and follow-up time revealed the association between lymphovascular invasion and prognosis determination. The inclusion of Lymphovascular invasion improved the accuracy of the eighth edition prognostic prediction. Thus, adjuvant chemotherapy among pT3N0M0 patients is commendable. However, the investigators recommend more research and external validation of their findings [82].

Blood indices and other blood markers have been associated with prognosis prediction in gastric cancer. Accordingly, the inclusion of preoperative fibrinogen level ≥4.0 g/l into eighth AJCC outperformed AJCC alone prognostically. Thus, adjuvant chemotherapy is a commendable consideration for patients with preoperative fibrinogen ≥4.0 g/l as it was associated with a poor prognosis [83]. Similarly, the presence of tumor deposits has been associated with poor overall survival. Thus, including tumor deposits into the eighth AJCC improves AJCC's prognostic accuracy among patients with tumor deposits [84]. The survival comparability of T4bN3a, N3b, and Cytology only stage IV and unified into stage IVa implied N3b patients are eligible to receive more intensive chemotherapy regimens [85]. Jeong et al. noted the efficacy of the clinical TNM staging schemata in survival discrimination among gastric cancer patients. Still, it had no benefits in prognostic performance over the pTNM [86]. However, the current edition doesn't improve the predictive accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound [87].

4. Conclusion

The eighth AJCC staging system is potentially crucial in predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer patients. However, future editions should consider disparities in surgical practices, particularly lymph nodes dissection and location, molecular characterization, and individual factors that are likely to influence the prognosis of the patients.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the working staff of the Gastrointestinal surgery Department of The Second Hospital of Shandong University.

References

  • 1.Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., et al. Vol. 71. 2021. pp. 209–249. (Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ji X., Bu Z.D., Yan Y., et al. The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis staging system for gastric cancer is superior to the 7th edition: results from a Chinese mono-institutional study of 1663 patients. Gastric. Cancer. 2018;21:643–652. doi: 10.1007/s10120-017-0779-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu J.Y., Peng C.W., Yang X.J., et al. The prognosis role of AJCC/UICC 8(th) edition staging system in gastric cancer, a retrospective analysis. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2018;10:292–303. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Amin M.B., Greene F.L., Edge S.B., et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging. Ca - Cancer J. Clin. 2017;67:93–99. doi: 10.3322/caac.21388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Marchet A., Mocellin S., Ambrosi A., et al. The ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes (N ratio) is an independent prognostic factor in gastric cancer regardless of the type of lymphadenectomy: results from an Italian multicentric study in 1853 patients. Ann. Surg. 2007;245:543–552. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000250423.43436.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lu J., Zheng C.H., Cao L.L., et al. The effectiveness of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification in the prognosis evaluation of gastric cancer patients: a comparative study between the 7th and 8th editions. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;43:2349–2356. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yoon H.M., Ryu K.W., Nam B.H., et al. Is the new seventh AJCC/UICC staging system appropriate for patients with gastric cancer? J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2012;214:88–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dikken J.L., van de Velde C.J., Gönen M., et al. The New American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union against Cancer staging system for adenocarcinoma of the stomach: increased complexity without clear improvement in predictive accuracy. Ann. Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2443–2451. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2403-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Marrelli D., Morgagni P., de Manzoni G., et al. Prognostic value of the 7th AJCC/UICC TNM classification of noncardia gastric cancer: analysis of a large series from specialized Western centers. Ann. Surg. 2012;255:486–491. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182389b1a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shu P., Qin J., Shen K., et al. The IGCA staging system is more accurate than AJCC7 system in stratifying survival of patients with gastric cancer in stage III. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:238. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3235-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abdel-Rahman O. Validation of the 8th AJCC staging system for gastric cancer in a population-based setting. Expet Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018;12:525–530. doi: 10.1080/17474124.2018.1413348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ilhan E., Ureyen O., Meral U.M. Ongoing problems concerning 7(th) TNM staging system and proposals for 8(th) TNM staging system of gastric cancer. Przeglad Gastroenterol. 2016;11:223–225. doi: 10.5114/pg.2016.64069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McGhan L.J., Pockaj B.A., Gray R.J., et al. Validation of the updated 7th edition AJCC TNM staging criteria for gastric adenocarcinoma. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2012;16:53–61. doi: 10.1007/s11605-011-1707-3. discussion 61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Patel M.I., Rhoads K.F., Ma Y., et al. Of the AJCC/UICC staging system for gastric adenocarcinoma: is there room for improvement? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010;20:1631–1638. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2724-5. Seventh edition, 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hallinan J.T., Venkatesh S.K. Gastric carcinoma: imaging diagnosis, staging and assessment of treatment response. Cancer Imag. 2013;13:212–227. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sano T., Coit D.G., Kim H.H., et al. Proposal of a new stage grouping of gastric cancer for TNM classification: international Gastric Cancer Association staging project. Gastric. Cancer. 2017;20:217–225. doi: 10.1007/s10120-016-0601-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pietrantonio F., Fucà G., Morano F., et al. Biomarkers of primary resistance to trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer patients: the AMNESIA case-control study. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018;24:1082–1089. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Agnes A., Biondi A., Cananzi F.M., et al. Ratio-based staging systems are better than the 7th and 8th editions of the TNM in stratifying the prognosis of gastric cancer patients: a multicenter retrospective study. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019;119:948–957. doi: 10.1002/jso.25411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.He X., Wu W., Lin Z., et al. Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition stage system for gastric cancer patients: a population-based analysis. Gastric. Cancer. 2018;21:391–400. doi: 10.1007/s10120-017-0770-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Peyroteo M., Martins P.C., Canotilho R., et al. Impact of the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM classification on gastric cancer prognosis-study of a western cohort. Ecancermed. sci. 2020;14:1124. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2020.1124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chen M.W., Yen H.H. Comparison of the sixth, seventh, and eighth editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system for gastric cancer: a single institution experience. Medicine (Baltim.) 2021;100 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Son T., Sun J., Choi S., et al. Multi-institutional validation of the 8th AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer: analysis of survival data from high-volume Eastern centers and the SEER database. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019;120:676–684. doi: 10.1002/jso.25639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.In H., Solsky I., Palis B., et al. Validation of the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer using the national cancer database. Ann. Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3683–3691. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6078-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wang H., Guo W., Hu Y., et al. Superiority of the 8th edition of the TNM staging system for predicting overall survival in gastric cancer: comparative analysis of the 7th and 8th editions in a monoinstitutional cohort. Mol Clin Oncol. 2018;9:423–431. doi: 10.3892/mco.2018.1683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.In H. The newly proposed clinical and post-neoadjuvant treatment staging classifications for gastric adenocarcinoma for the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging. Ravetch E., Langdon-Embry M., et al., editors. Gastric. Cancer. 2018;21:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10120-017-0765-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhu M.H., Zhang K.C., Yang Z.L., et al. Comparing prognostic values of the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for gastric cancer. Int. J. Biol. Markers. 2020;35:26–32. doi: 10.1177/1724600819891585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Oh S.E., An J.Y., Choi M.G., et al. Comparisons of remnant primary, residual, and recurrent gastric cancer and applicability of the 8th AJCC TNM classification for remnant gastric cancer staging. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020;46:2236–2242. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fang W.L., Huang K.H., Chen M.H., et al. Comparative study of the 7th and 8th AJCC editions for gastric cancer patients after curative surgery. PLoS One. 2017;12 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kim S.G., Seo H.S., Lee H.H., et al. Comparison of the differences in survival rates between the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC TNM staging system for gastric adenocarcinoma: a single-institution study of 5,507 patients in korea. J. Gastric. Cancer. 2017;17:212–219. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2017.17.e23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Graziosi L., Marino E., Donini A. Survival comparison in gastric cancer patients between 7th and 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system: the first western single center experience. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019;45:1105–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lu J., Zheng C.H., Cao L.L., et al. Comparison of the 7th and 8th editions of the American joint committee on cancer TNM classification for patients with stage III gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:83555–83562. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Seeruttun S.R., Yuan S., Qiu H., et al. A comprehensive analysis comparing the eighth AJCC gastric cancer pathological classification to the seventh, sixth, and fifth editions. Cancer Med. 2017;6:2804–2813. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lin J.X., Lin J.P., Xie J.W., et al. Is the AJCC TNM staging system still appropriate for gastric cancer patients survival after 5 years? Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019;45:1115–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lin J.X., Desiderio J., Lin J.P., et al. Multicenter validation study of the American joint commission on cancer (8th edition) for gastric cancer: proposal for a simplified and improved TNM staging system. J. Cancer. 2020;11:3483–3491. doi: 10.7150/jca.36891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jiang Y., Tu R., Lu J., et al. Proposed modification of the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system for gastric cancer. J. Invest. Surg. 2020;33:932–938. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2018.1544325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lin J.X., Lin J.P., Li P., et al. Which staging system better predicts 10-year survival for gastric cancer? A study using an international multicenter database. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018;44:1205–1211. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cao L.L., Lu J., Li P., et al. Evaluation of the eighth edition of the American joint committee on cancer TNM staging system for gastric cancer: an analysis of 7371 patients in the SEER database. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2019;2019:6294382. doi: 10.1155/2019/6294382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chen Y., Zhang G., Zhao B., et al. A better prognostic stratification for the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system of gastric cancer by incorporating pT4aN0M0 into stage IIIA. Surg. Oncol. 2019;29:90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Naffouje S.A., Salti G.I. Extensive lymph node dissection improves survival among American patients with gastric adenocarcinoma treated surgically: analysis of the national cancer database. J. Gastric. Cancer. 2017;17:319–330. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2017.17.e36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zhong Q., Chen Q.Y., Parisi A., et al. Modified ypTNM staging classification for gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a multi-institutional study. Oncol. 2021;26:e99–e110. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Smith D.D., Schwarz R.R., Schwarz R.E. Impact of total lymph node count on staging and survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a large US-population database. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:7114–7124. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.14.621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lin J.X., Yoon C., Desiderio J., et al. Development and validation of a staging system for gastric adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2019;106:1187–1196. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Li Z., Xiao Q., Wang Y., et al. A modified ypTNM staging system-development and external validation of a nomogram predicting the overall survival of gastric cancer patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Manag. Res. 2020;12:2047–2055. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S236696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Li Z., Wang Y., Shan F., et al. ypTNM staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the Chinese gastric cancer population: an evaluation on the prognostic value of the AJCC eighth edition cancer staging system. Gastric. Cancer. 2018;21:977–987. doi: 10.1007/s10120-018-0830-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ikoma N., Hofstetter W.L., Estrella J.S., et al. The ypT category does not impact overall survival in node negative gastric cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018;117:1721–1728. doi: 10.1002/jso.25081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shimada H., Noie T., Ohashi M., et al. Clinical significance of serum tumor markers for gastric cancer: a systematic review of literature by the Task Force of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Gastric Cancer. 2014;17:26–33. doi: 10.1007/s10120-013-0259-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chen X.Z., Zhang W.K., Yang K., et al. Correlation between serum CA724 and gastric cancer: multiple analyses based on Chinese population. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2012;39:9031–9039. doi: 10.1007/s11033-012-1774-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lin J.X., Wang W., Lin J.P., et al. Preoperative tumor markers independently predict survival in stage III gastric cancer patients: should we include tumor markers in AJCC staging? Ann. Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2703–2712. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6634-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Xing X., Jia S., Leng Y., et al. An integrated classifier improves prognostic accuracy in non-metastatic gastric cancer. OncoImmunology. 2020;9:1792038. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1792038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wen T., Wang Z., Li Y., et al. A four-factor immunoscore system that predicts clinical outcome for stage II/III gastric cancer. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2017;5:524–534. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Jiang Y., Zhang Q., Hu Y., et al. ImmunoScore signature: a prognostic and predictive tool in gastric cancer. Ann. Surg. 2018;267:504–513. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Koh J., Ock C.Y., Kim J.W., et al. Clinicopathologic implications of immune classification by PD-L1 expression and CD8-positive tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in stage II and III gastric cancer patients. Oncotarget. 2017;8:26356–26367. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Yin X., Fang T., Zhang L., et al. Impact of CD144 gene expression on outcomes in stage III gastric cancer patients. Pathology. 2020;52:657–669. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2020.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mantovani A., Allavena P., Sica A., Balkwill F. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature. 2008;454:436–444. doi: 10.1038/nature07205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Labelle M., Begum S., Hynes R.O. Direct signaling between platelets and cancer cells induces an epithelial-mesenchymal-like transition and promotes metastasis. Cancer Cell. 2011;20:576–590. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2011.09.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Xu Z., Jing J., Ma G. Development and validation of prognostic nomogram based on log odds of positive lymph nodes for patients with gastric signet ring cell carcinoma. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2020;32:778–793. doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.06.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Bando E., Ji X., Kattan M.W., et al. Development and validation of a pretreatment nomogram to predict overall survival in gastric cancer. Cancer Med. 2020;9:5708–5718. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wang X., Mao M., Zhu S., et al. A novel nomogram integrated with inflammation-based factors to predict the prognosis of gastric cancer patients. Adv. Ther. 2020;37:2902–2915. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01356-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cools-Lartigue J., Spicer J., McDonald B., et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps sequester circulating tumor cells and promote metastasis. J. Clin. Invest. 2013;123:3446–3458. doi: 10.1172/JCI67484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Li S., Lan X., Gao H., et al. Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI), cancer stem cells and survival of localised gastric adenocarcinoma after curative resection. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2017;143:2455–2468. doi: 10.1007/s00432-017-2506-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Shi H., Jiang Y., Cao H., et al. Nomogram based on systemic immune-inflammation index to predict overall survival in gastric cancer patients. Dis. Markers. 2018;2018:1787424. doi: 10.1155/2018/1787424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zheng H., Zhao Y., He Q., et al. Multi-institutional development and validation of a nomogram to predict recurrence after curative resection of gastric neuroendocrine/mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma. Gastric. Cancer. 2021;24:503–514. doi: 10.1007/s10120-020-01119-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lin J.X., Wang Z.K., Wang W., et al. Development and validation of a new staging system for node-negative gastric cancer based on recursive partitioning analysis: an international multi-institutional study. Cancer Med. 2019;8:2962–2970. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Che K., Liu F., Wu N., et al. Individualized prediction of survival benefits from perioperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Cancer Med. 2020;9:7137–7150. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lu J., Zheng Z.F., Xie J.W., et al. Is the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system sufficiently reasonable for all patients with noncardia gastric cancer? A 12,549-patient international database study. Ann. Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2002–2011. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6447-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Yuan S.Q., Chen Y.T., Huang Z.P. Equipping the 8th edition American joint committee on cancer staging for gastric cancer with the 15-node minimum: a population-based study using recursive partitioning analysis. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2017;21:1591–1598. doi: 10.1007/s11605-017-3504-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Yang Z.L., Zhu M.H., Han X.J., et al. Modified American joint committee on cancer tumor-node-metastasis staging system based on the node ratio can further improve the capacity of prognosis assessment for gastric cancer patients. Front. Oncol. 2019;9:329. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Yang Z.L., Zhu M.H., Shi Q., et al. Prognostic value of the number of lymph nodes examined in patients with node-negative gastric cancer. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019;23:460–467. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3947-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Seeruttun S.R., Xu L., Wang F., et al. A homogenized approach to classify advanced gastric cancer patients with limited and adequate number of pathologically examined lymph nodes. Cancer Commun. 2019;39:32. doi: 10.1186/s40880-019-0370-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ruspi L., Galli F., Frattini F., et al. A "perfect" lymph node staging system requires a "perfect" surgery. Transl. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016;1:10. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2016.01.05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Woo Y., Goldner B., Ituarte P., et al. Lymphadenectomy with optimum of 29 lymph nodes retrieved associated with improved survival in advanced gastric cancer: a 25,000-patient international database study. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2017;224:546–555. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.12.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Gu P., Deng J., Wang W., et al. Impact of the number of examined lymph nodes on stage migration in node-negative gastric cancer patients: a Chinese multi-institutional analysis with propensity score matching. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020;8:938. doi: 10.21037/atm-19-4727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Deng J., Liu J., Wang W., et al. Validation of clinical significance of examined lymph node count for accurate prognostic evaluation of gastric cancer for the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2018;30:477–491. doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.05.01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Ye J., Ren Y., Wei Z., et al. External validation of a modified 8th AJCC TNM system for advanced gastric cancer: long-term results in southern China. Surg. Oncol. 2018;27:146–153. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2018.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Chen Y.H., Lu J., Nie R.C., et al. Retrieval of 30 lymph nodes is mandatory for selected stage II gastric cancer patients. Front. Oncol. 2021;11:593470. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.593470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zhang M., Ding C., Xu L., et al. Comparison of a tumor-ratio-metastasis staging system and the 8th AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer. Front. Oncol. 2021;11:595421. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.595421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Lauricella S., Caricato M., Mascianà G., et al. Topographic lymph node staging system shows prognostic superiority compared to the 8th edition of AJCC TNM in gastric cancer. A western monocentric experience. Surg. Oncol. 2020;34:223–233. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.04.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Gong Y., Pan S., Wang X., et al. A novel lymph node staging system for gastric cancer including modified Union for cancer Control/American Joint Committee on cancer and Japanese Gastric Cancer Association criteria. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020;46:e27–e32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Pan S., Wang P., Xing Y., et al. Retrieved lymph nodes from different anatomic groups in gastric cancer: a proposed optimal number, comparison with other nodal classification strategies and its impact on prognosis. Cancer Commun. 2019;39:49. doi: 10.1186/s40880-019-0394-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Ding P.A., Yang P.G., Tian Y., et al. [The clinical value of further accurate staging of pT2 gastric cancer based on the depth of invasion] Zhonghua Zhongliu Zazhi. 2021;43:1197–1202. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20200309-00189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Shang L., Li B., He F., et al. [Effect of lymphatic vascular invasion on the prognosis of stage I(gastric cancer patients after radical gastrectomy] Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2018;21:175–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Lu J., Dai Y., Xie J.W., et al. Combination of lymphovascular invasion and the AJCC TNM staging system improves prediction of prognosis in N0 stage gastric cancer: results from a high-volume institution. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:216. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5416-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Ding P., Zheng C., Cao G., et al. Combination of preoperative plasma fibrinogen and AJCC staging improves the accuracy of survival prediction for patients with stage I-II gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy. Cancer Med. 2019;8:2919–2929. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Chen H., Tang Z., Chen L., et al. Evaluation of the impact of tumor deposits on prognosis in gastric cancer and a proposal for their incorporation into the AJCC staging system. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018;44:1990–1996. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Kim S.H., Lee H.J., Park J.H., et al. Proposal of a new TNM classification for gastric cancer: focusing on pN3b and cytology-positive (CY1) disease. J. Gastric. Cancer. 2019;19:329–343. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2019.19.e33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Jeong O., Jung M.R., Kang J.H., Ryu S.Y. Prognostic performance of preoperative staging: assessed by using multidetector computed tomography-between the new clinical classification and the pathological classification in the eighth American joint committee on cancer classification for gastric carcinoma. Ann. Surg Oncol. 2020;27:545–551. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07845-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Han C., Xu T., Zhang Q., et al. The New American Joint Committee on Cancer T staging system for stomach: increased complexity without clear improvement in predictive accuracy for endoscopic ultrasound. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21:255. doi: 10.1186/s12876-020-01558-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Medicine and Surgery are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES