Head & neck · 2009
TNM-based stage groupings in head and neck cancer: application in cancer of the hypopharynx.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hall Stephen F, Groome Patti A, Irish Jonathan, O'Sullivan Brian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to test the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC)/TNM category-based head and neck cancer stage grouping systems proposed in the literature for their ability to create clinically relevant prognostic groups of like-patients with cancer of the hypopharynx.
METHODS: Population-based retrospective survival study of 595 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx across Ontario, Canada, from January 1990 to January 2000. The grouping systems of UICC/TNM, T and N Integer Score (TANIS), Hart, Berg, Snyderman, Kiricuta, and Hall were tested and compared for prognostic ability using hazard consistency, hazard discrimination, percent variance explained, outcome prediction, and balance.
RESULTS: All 8 systems predicted disease-specific survival. The system proposed by Snyderman performed the best, and UICC/TNM sixth edition did not perform as well as most.
CONCLUSION: The UICC/TNM stage group classification, although successful in creating statistically distinct groups, did not perform as well as other stage grouping systems, continuing a theme that has been reported previously.
METHODS: Population-based retrospective survival study of 595 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx across Ontario, Canada, from January 1990 to January 2000. The grouping systems of UICC/TNM, T and N Integer Score (TANIS), Hart, Berg, Snyderman, Kiricuta, and Hall were tested and compared for prognostic ability using hazard consistency, hazard discrimination, percent variance explained, outcome prediction, and balance.
RESULTS: All 8 systems predicted disease-specific survival. The system proposed by Snyderman performed the best, and UICC/TNM sixth edition did not perform as well as most.
CONCLUSION: The UICC/TNM stage group classification, although successful in creating statistically distinct groups, did not perform as well as other stage grouping systems, continuing a theme that has been reported previously.