Loading…

A comparison of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer staging systems for staging nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND The Chinese 1992 staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been widely adopted in mainland China since 1992. The fifth edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification defines new rules for classifying NPC. The current study compares the two in predi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cancer 2000-07, Vol.89 (2), p.242-247
Main Authors: Hong, Ming‐Huang, Mai, Hai‐Qiang, Min, Hua‐Qing, Ma, Jun, Zhang, En‐Pi, Cui, Nian‐Ji
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3866-6137b496a78f62b5a3bd3e67449fb56855361bc7d2a30ae7d913fd7feacd2a253
container_end_page 247
container_issue 2
container_start_page 242
container_title Cancer
container_volume 89
creator Hong, Ming‐Huang
Mai, Hai‐Qiang
Min, Hua‐Qing
Ma, Jun
Zhang, En‐Pi
Cui, Nian‐Ji
description BACKGROUND The Chinese 1992 staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been widely adopted in mainland China since 1992. The fifth edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification defines new rules for classifying NPC. The current study compares the two in predicting NPC prognosis. METHODS Four hundred eleven NPC patients, most of whom had disease of undifferentiated histologic type and were treated in a constant fashion and with definitive intent with radiation therapy alone, entered this comparative study. The patients were restaged according to the rules of the fifth edition of the UICC staging manual and the Chinese 1992 staging system. RESULTS In the opinion of the authors, the predictive power of the Chinese 1992 T classification was superior. Conversely, the authors felt that the UICC N classification was more reasonable. The patients were categorized more evenly by the UICC stages than by the Chinese 1992 stages. The 5‐year disease specific survival rates for patients in corresponding stages of both systems were almost identical despite differences in the criteria defining T and N classifications. Statistical analysis showed that the agreement rate was 72%. There were some agreement and correlation between the two staging systems. CONCLUSIONS Both systems are essentially similar. Each system appears to have some subtleties that could improve the outcome prediction of the other system if the two were somehow combined. However, it appeared to the authors that the UICC system was slightly better. Cancer 2000;89:242–7. © 2000 American Cancer Society. The 5‐year survival rates for patients in the corresponding stages of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer (UICC) systems are almost identical in spite of differences in criteria defining the T and N classifications. However, the authors of this study believe that the UICC system is slightly better.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/1097-0142(20000715)89:2<242::AID-CNCR6>3.0.CO;2-Z
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71246053</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71246053</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3866-6137b496a78f62b5a3bd3e67449fb56855361bc7d2a30ae7d913fd7feacd2a253</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkc2O0zAUhS0EYjoDr4C8QIhZpPgncZIOQqrCX6URFT8jodlYN47dGiVOsVOh7ngAFjwjT4JDCsOCDd7EOfru9dE5CJWUzCkh7AklZZ4QmrLHjMST0-y8KBfsKUvZYrFcPU-qN9U78YzPybxaX7Dk-haa_Zm5jWZxpkiylH88QachfBpXsIzfRScRogXN6Ax9W2LVdzvwNvQO9wYPW42rrXU6aEzLkmFwDTbWDNsfX7_rxg42cis3aO9gvEOLr9yoLTdgXRhwBU5pj8MAG-s2OBzCoLuATX-jOQj9bgv-4DY6zivwyrq-g3vojoE26PvH7xm6evniQ_U6uVy_WlXLy0TxQohEUJ7XaSkgL4xgdQa8brgWeZqWps5EkWVc0FrlDQNOQOdNSblpcqNBRSkmcIYeTXt3vv-812GQnQ1Kty043e-DzClLBcl4BN9OoPJ9CF4bufO2i8YlJXKsSI5xyzFu-bsiWZQy_kVFxorkr4okl0RW66hfx50Pjo_v6043f22cOonAwyMAQUFrfAzUhhsu5Slno7f3E_bFtvrwX8b-5WsS-E9lM7lG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71246053</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer staging systems for staging nasopharyngeal carcinoma</title><source>Wiley</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Hong, Ming‐Huang ; Mai, Hai‐Qiang ; Min, Hua‐Qing ; Ma, Jun ; Zhang, En‐Pi ; Cui, Nian‐Ji</creator><creatorcontrib>Hong, Ming‐Huang ; Mai, Hai‐Qiang ; Min, Hua‐Qing ; Ma, Jun ; Zhang, En‐Pi ; Cui, Nian‐Ji</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND The Chinese 1992 staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been widely adopted in mainland China since 1992. The fifth edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification defines new rules for classifying NPC. The current study compares the two in predicting NPC prognosis. METHODS Four hundred eleven NPC patients, most of whom had disease of undifferentiated histologic type and were treated in a constant fashion and with definitive intent with radiation therapy alone, entered this comparative study. The patients were restaged according to the rules of the fifth edition of the UICC staging manual and the Chinese 1992 staging system. RESULTS In the opinion of the authors, the predictive power of the Chinese 1992 T classification was superior. Conversely, the authors felt that the UICC N classification was more reasonable. The patients were categorized more evenly by the UICC stages than by the Chinese 1992 stages. The 5‐year disease specific survival rates for patients in corresponding stages of both systems were almost identical despite differences in the criteria defining T and N classifications. Statistical analysis showed that the agreement rate was 72%. There were some agreement and correlation between the two staging systems. CONCLUSIONS Both systems are essentially similar. Each system appears to have some subtleties that could improve the outcome prediction of the other system if the two were somehow combined. However, it appeared to the authors that the UICC system was slightly better. Cancer 2000;89:242–7. © 2000 American Cancer Society. The 5‐year survival rates for patients in the corresponding stages of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer (UICC) systems are almost identical in spite of differences in criteria defining the T and N classifications. However, the authors of this study believe that the UICC system is slightly better.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-543X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000715)89:2&lt;242::AID-CNCR6&gt;3.0.CO;2-Z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10918151</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CANCAR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; China ; comparison ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; nasopharyngeal carcinoma ; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - classification ; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - mortality ; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology ; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Nasopharynx ; Neoplasm Staging - methods ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prognosis ; Survival Analysis ; Tropical medicine ; tumor staging ; Tumors ; Upper respiratory tract, upper alimentary tract, paranasal sinuses, salivary glands: diseases, semeiology</subject><ispartof>Cancer, 2000-07, Vol.89 (2), p.242-247</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2000 American Cancer Society</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright 2000 American Cancer Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3866-6137b496a78f62b5a3bd3e67449fb56855361bc7d2a30ae7d913fd7feacd2a253</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1434323$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10918151$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hong, Ming‐Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mai, Hai‐Qiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Min, Hua‐Qing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, En‐Pi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Nian‐Ji</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer staging systems for staging nasopharyngeal carcinoma</title><title>Cancer</title><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND The Chinese 1992 staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been widely adopted in mainland China since 1992. The fifth edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification defines new rules for classifying NPC. The current study compares the two in predicting NPC prognosis. METHODS Four hundred eleven NPC patients, most of whom had disease of undifferentiated histologic type and were treated in a constant fashion and with definitive intent with radiation therapy alone, entered this comparative study. The patients were restaged according to the rules of the fifth edition of the UICC staging manual and the Chinese 1992 staging system. RESULTS In the opinion of the authors, the predictive power of the Chinese 1992 T classification was superior. Conversely, the authors felt that the UICC N classification was more reasonable. The patients were categorized more evenly by the UICC stages than by the Chinese 1992 stages. The 5‐year disease specific survival rates for patients in corresponding stages of both systems were almost identical despite differences in the criteria defining T and N classifications. Statistical analysis showed that the agreement rate was 72%. There were some agreement and correlation between the two staging systems. CONCLUSIONS Both systems are essentially similar. Each system appears to have some subtleties that could improve the outcome prediction of the other system if the two were somehow combined. However, it appeared to the authors that the UICC system was slightly better. Cancer 2000;89:242–7. © 2000 American Cancer Society. The 5‐year survival rates for patients in the corresponding stages of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer (UICC) systems are almost identical in spite of differences in criteria defining the T and N classifications. However, the authors of this study believe that the UICC system is slightly better.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>comparison</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>nasopharyngeal carcinoma</subject><subject>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - classification</subject><subject>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - mortality</subject><subject>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Nasopharynx</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging - methods</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Tropical medicine</subject><subject>tumor staging</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Upper respiratory tract, upper alimentary tract, paranasal sinuses, salivary glands: diseases, semeiology</subject><issn>0008-543X</issn><issn>1097-0142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqVkc2O0zAUhS0EYjoDr4C8QIhZpPgncZIOQqrCX6URFT8jodlYN47dGiVOsVOh7ngAFjwjT4JDCsOCDd7EOfru9dE5CJWUzCkh7AklZZ4QmrLHjMST0-y8KBfsKUvZYrFcPU-qN9U78YzPybxaX7Dk-haa_Zm5jWZxpkiylH88QachfBpXsIzfRScRogXN6Ax9W2LVdzvwNvQO9wYPW42rrXU6aEzLkmFwDTbWDNsfX7_rxg42cis3aO9gvEOLr9yoLTdgXRhwBU5pj8MAG-s2OBzCoLuATX-jOQj9bgv-4DY6zivwyrq-g3vojoE26PvH7xm6evniQ_U6uVy_WlXLy0TxQohEUJ7XaSkgL4xgdQa8brgWeZqWps5EkWVc0FrlDQNOQOdNSblpcqNBRSkmcIYeTXt3vv-812GQnQ1Kty043e-DzClLBcl4BN9OoPJ9CF4bufO2i8YlJXKsSI5xyzFu-bsiWZQy_kVFxorkr4okl0RW66hfx50Pjo_v6043f22cOonAwyMAQUFrfAzUhhsu5Slno7f3E_bFtvrwX8b-5WsS-E9lM7lG</recordid><startdate>20000715</startdate><enddate>20000715</enddate><creator>Hong, Ming‐Huang</creator><creator>Mai, Hai‐Qiang</creator><creator>Min, Hua‐Qing</creator><creator>Ma, Jun</creator><creator>Zhang, En‐Pi</creator><creator>Cui, Nian‐Ji</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley-Liss</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000715</creationdate><title>A comparison of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer staging systems for staging nasopharyngeal carcinoma</title><author>Hong, Ming‐Huang ; Mai, Hai‐Qiang ; Min, Hua‐Qing ; Ma, Jun ; Zhang, En‐Pi ; Cui, Nian‐Ji</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3866-6137b496a78f62b5a3bd3e67449fb56855361bc7d2a30ae7d913fd7feacd2a253</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>comparison</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>nasopharyngeal carcinoma</topic><topic>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - classification</topic><topic>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - mortality</topic><topic>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Nasopharynx</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging - methods</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Tropical medicine</topic><topic>tumor staging</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Upper respiratory tract, upper alimentary tract, paranasal sinuses, salivary glands: diseases, semeiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hong, Ming‐Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mai, Hai‐Qiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Min, Hua‐Qing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, En‐Pi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Nian‐Ji</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hong, Ming‐Huang</au><au>Mai, Hai‐Qiang</au><au>Min, Hua‐Qing</au><au>Ma, Jun</au><au>Zhang, En‐Pi</au><au>Cui, Nian‐Ji</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer staging systems for staging nasopharyngeal carcinoma</atitle><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><date>2000-07-15</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>242</spage><epage>247</epage><pages>242-247</pages><issn>0008-543X</issn><eissn>1097-0142</eissn><coden>CANCAR</coden><abstract>BACKGROUND The Chinese 1992 staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been widely adopted in mainland China since 1992. The fifth edition of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification defines new rules for classifying NPC. The current study compares the two in predicting NPC prognosis. METHODS Four hundred eleven NPC patients, most of whom had disease of undifferentiated histologic type and were treated in a constant fashion and with definitive intent with radiation therapy alone, entered this comparative study. The patients were restaged according to the rules of the fifth edition of the UICC staging manual and the Chinese 1992 staging system. RESULTS In the opinion of the authors, the predictive power of the Chinese 1992 T classification was superior. Conversely, the authors felt that the UICC N classification was more reasonable. The patients were categorized more evenly by the UICC stages than by the Chinese 1992 stages. The 5‐year disease specific survival rates for patients in corresponding stages of both systems were almost identical despite differences in the criteria defining T and N classifications. Statistical analysis showed that the agreement rate was 72%. There were some agreement and correlation between the two staging systems. CONCLUSIONS Both systems are essentially similar. Each system appears to have some subtleties that could improve the outcome prediction of the other system if the two were somehow combined. However, it appeared to the authors that the UICC system was slightly better. Cancer 2000;89:242–7. © 2000 American Cancer Society. The 5‐year survival rates for patients in the corresponding stages of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer (UICC) systems are almost identical in spite of differences in criteria defining the T and N classifications. However, the authors of this study believe that the UICC system is slightly better.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>10918151</pmid><doi>10.1002/1097-0142(20000715)89:2&lt;242::AID-CNCR6&gt;3.0.CO;2-Z</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-543X
ispartof Cancer, 2000-07, Vol.89 (2), p.242-247
issn 0008-543X
1097-0142
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71246053
source Wiley; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Biological and medical sciences
China
comparison
Female
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - classification
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - mortality
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology
Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Nasopharynx
Neoplasm Staging - methods
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Predictive Value of Tests
Prognosis
Survival Analysis
Tropical medicine
tumor staging
Tumors
Upper respiratory tract, upper alimentary tract, paranasal sinuses, salivary glands: diseases, semeiology
title A comparison of the Chinese 1992 and fifth‐edition International Union Against Cancer staging systems for staging nasopharyngeal carcinoma
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T15%3A15%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20the%20Chinese%201992%20and%20fifth%E2%80%90edition%20International%20Union%20Against%20Cancer%20staging%20systems%20for%20staging%20nasopharyngeal%20carcinoma&rft.jtitle=Cancer&rft.au=Hong,%20Ming%E2%80%90Huang&rft.date=2000-07-15&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=242&rft.epage=247&rft.pages=242-247&rft.issn=0008-543X&rft.eissn=1097-0142&rft.coden=CANCAR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/1097-0142(20000715)89:2%3C242::AID-CNCR6%3E3.0.CO;2-Z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71246053%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3866-6137b496a78f62b5a3bd3e67449fb56855361bc7d2a30ae7d913fd7feacd2a253%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71246053&rft_id=info:pmid/10918151&rfr_iscdi=true