Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 23;20:304. doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02773-1

Table 5.

Comparison of the performance of the TNM staging system and other revised staging systems for GC

Year Authors Description TNM stage edition χ2 AUC 95% CI C-index 95% CI AIC (f)
2011 Wang W. et al. Presence of TDs (1–2) as pN3 category. Presence of TDs (≥ 3) as M1 category. 7a 609.13 0.837 0.817–0.857 0.798 0.782–0.814 7102.251

2012

2017

Sun Z. et al.

Anup S. et al.

Presence of TDs as T4a 7 603.16 0.834 0.814–0.854 0.795 0.779–0.811 7106.225
2013 Lee H.S. et al. 1 TD as 1 positive LN; revised N category 7b 612.53 0.832 0.812–0.852 0.793 0.777–0.809 7096.855
2017 AJCC 8th GC’s TNM stage (without TDs) 8 603.77 0.834 0.814–0.855 0.795 0.779–0.811 7105.614
2017 AJCC 1 TD as 1 positive LN (8th GC’s TNM N category) 8 628.90 0.841 0.821–0.861 0.800 0.784–0.816 7080.478
2018 Chen H. et al. Presence of TDs upstage N stage except for N3b 8 615.94 0.839 0.819–0.859 0.801 0.785–0.817 7093.440
2019 Liang Y. et al. Presence of TDs upstage N category as follows: N0→mN2; N1→mN2; N2→mN3a. Others unmentioned remained unchanged. 8 630.49 0.841 0.821–0.861 0.800 0.784–0.816 7078.888
2019 Tan J. et al. Presence of TDs as N3 7a 606.83 0.836 0.816–0.857 0.797 0.781–0.813 7102.546
2020 Gu L. et al. Presence of TDs upstage TNM stage except for IIIC 8 643.57 0.843 0.823–0.864 0.805 0.789–0.821 7065.813

Abbreviations: AIC Akaike information criterion, AUC area under the curve, CI confidence interval, GC gastric cancer, LNs lymph nodes, TD tumor deposit

Larger χ2, AUC, and C–index values and a smaller AIC value indicate that the system has a better discriminative ability

aWe used the 8th edition of the TNM staging system for GC in our validation, but in these two proposals, N3 was not further divided into N3a or N3b, so we could only use the 7th edition of the TNM staging system for GC

bN category was revised