The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
International Validation of the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Staging System in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Cancer
Open accessAbstract
Importance: The recently released eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for pancreatic cancer seeks to improve prognostic accuracy but lacks international validation. Objective: To validate the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system in an international cohort of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international multicenter cohort study took place in 5 tertiary centers in Europe and the United States from 2000 to 2015. Patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for nonmetastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were eligible. Data analysis took place from December 2017 to April 2018. Exposures: Patients were retrospectively staged according to the seventh and eighth editions of the TNM staging system. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prognostic accuracy on survival rates, assessed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses and concordance statistics. Results: A total of 1525 consecutive patients were included (median [IQR] age, 66 (58-72) years; 802 (52.6%) male). Distribution among stages via the seventh edition was stage IA in 41 patients (2.7%), stage IB in 42 (2.8%), stage IIA in 200 (13.1%), stage IIB in 1229 (80.6%), and stage III in 12 (0.8%); this changed with use of the eighth edition to stage IA in 118 patients (7.7%), stage IB in 144 (9.4%), stage IIA in 22 (1.4%), stage IIB in 643 (42.2%), and stage III in 598 (39.2%). With the eighth edition, 774 patients (50.8%) migrated to a different stage; 183 (12.0%) were reclassified to a lower stage and 591 (38.8%) to a higher stage. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 24.4 months (95% CI, 23.4-26.2 months). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 5-year survival rates changed from 38.2% for patients in stage IA, 34.7% in IB, 35.3% in IIA, 16.5% in IIB, and 0% in stage III (log-rank P < .001) via classification with the seventh edition to 39.2% for patients in stage IA, 33.9% in IB, 27.6% in IIA, 21.0% in IIB, and 10.8% in stage III (log-rank P < .001) with the eighth edition. For patients who were node negative, the T stage was not associated with prognostication of survival in either edition. In the eighth edition, the N stage was associated with 5-year survival rates of 35.6% in N0, 20.8% in N1, and 10.9% in N2 (log-rank P < .001). The C statistic improved from 0.55 (95% CI, 0.53-0.57) for the seventh edition to 0.57 (95% CI, 0.55-0.60) for the eighth edition. Conclusions and Relevance: The eighth edition of the TNM staging system demonstrated a more equal distribution among stages and a modestly increased prognostic accuracy in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with the seventh edition. The revised T stage remains poorly associated with survival, whereas the revised N stage is highly prognostic.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · Cited by 51,384
(2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3 · Cited by 17,242
American Joint Committee on Cancer (2002) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3656-4 · Cited by 6,379
Egner, J. R. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1525 · Cited by 5,997
Alba, A. C., Agoritsas, T., Walsh, M., Hanna, S., Iorio, A., Devereaux, P. J., McGinn, T., & Guyatt, G. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.12126 · Cited by 1,631
Uno, H., Cai, T., Pencina, M. J., D'Agostino, R. B., & Wei, L. J. (2011) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4154 · Cited by 1,535
(2006) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(issn)1097-0142 · Cited by 1,470
TNM classification of malignant tumors, fifth edition (1997)
Sobin, L. H., & Fleming, I. D. (1997) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971101)80:9<1803::aid-cncr16>3.0.co;2-9 · Cited by 999
8th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Pancreas and Hepatobiliary Cancers
Chun, Y. S., Pawlik, T. M., & Vauthey, J.-N. (2018) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-017-6025-x · Cited by 812
Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer
Verbeke, C. S., Leitch, D., Menon, K. V., McMahon, M. J., Guillou, P. J., & Anthoney, A. (2006) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5397 · Cited by 593
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Tol, 2015, Impact of lymph node ratio on survival in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer., Br J Surg, 102, 237, 10.1002/bjs.2015.102.issue-3 · doi:10.1002/bjs.2015.102.issue-3
- Schlitter, 2017, pT but not pN stage of the 8th TNM classification significantly improves prognostication in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma., Eur J Cancer, 84, 121, 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.06.034 · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2017.06.034
- Soer, 2018, Dilemmas for the pathologist in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens: an overview of different grossing approaches and the relevance of the histopathological characteristics in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens., Virchows Arch, 472, 533, 10.1007/s00428-018-2321-5 · doi:10.1007/s00428-018-2321-5
- Adsay, 2014, Whipple made simple for surgical pathologists: orientation, dissection, and sampling of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens for a more practical and accurate evaluation of pancreatic, distal common bile duct, and ampullary tumors., Am J Surg Pathol, 38, 480, 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000165 · doi:10.1097/pas.0000000000000165
Cited by
Klatte, D. C. F., Boekestijn, B., Wasser, M. N. J. M., Feshtali Shahbazi, S., Ibrahim, I. S., Mieog, J. S. D., Luelmo, S. A. C., Morreau, H., Potjer, T. P., Inderson, A., et al. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.22.00194 · Cited by 102
Jiang, J., Chao, W.-L., Culp, S., & Krishna, S. G. (2023) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers15092410 · Cited by 38
Lee, W., Park, H. J., Lee, H.-J., Jun, E., Song, K. B., Hwang, D. W., Lee, J. H., Lim, K., Kim, N., Lee, S. S., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106851 · Cited by 35
Amintas, S., Fernandez, B., Chauvet, A., Chiche, L., Laurent, C., Belleannée, G., Marty, M., Buscail, E., & Dabernat, S. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-07004-x · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- van Roessel, S., Kasumova, G. G., Verheij, J., Najarian, R. M., Maggino, L., de Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Salvia, R., Ng, S. C., de Geus, S. W., Lof, S., Giovinazzo, F., van Dam, J. L., Kent, T. S., Busch, O. R., van Eijck, C. H., Koerkamp, B. G., Abu Hilal, M., Bassi, C., Tseng, J. F., & Besselink, M. G.
- Venue
- JAMA Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2018-12-19
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e183617
- ISSN
- 2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2894694766
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 11.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: International Validation of the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Staging System in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.3617
- The paper
- van Roessel, S., Kasumova, G. G., Verheij, J., Najarian, R. M., Maggino, L., de Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Salvia, R., Ng, S. C., de Geus, S. W., Lof, S., Giovinazzo, F., van Dam, J. L., Kent, T. S., Busch, O. R., van Eijck, C. H., Koerkamp, B. G., Abu Hilal, M., . . . Besselink, M. G. (2018). International Validation of the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Staging System in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Cancer. JAMA Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.3617
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.