Current and future cancer staging after neoadjuvant treatment for solid tumors.

Until recently, cancer registries have only collected cancer clinical stage at diagnosis, before any therapy, and pathological stage after surgical resection, provided no treatment has been given before the surgery, but they have not collected stage data after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Because NAT is increasingly being used to treat a variety of tumors, it has become important to make the distinction between both the clinical and the pathological assessment without NAT and the assessment after NAT to avoid any misunderstanding of the significance of the clinical and pathological findings. It also is important that cancer registries collect data after NAT to assess response and effectiveness of this treatment approach on a population basis. The prefix y is used to denote stage after NAT. Currently, cancer registries of the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer only partially collect y stage data, and data on the clinical response to NAT (yc or posttherapy clinical information) are not collected or recorded in a standardized fashion. In addition to NAT, nonoperative management after radiation and chemotherapy is being used with increasing frequency in rectal cancer and may be expanded to other treatment sites. Using examples from breast, rectal, and esophageal cancers, the pathological and imaging changes seen after NAT are reviewed to demonstrate appropriate staging.

Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction-Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE New to the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual for epithelial cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction are separate, temporally related cancer classifications: 1) before treatment decision (clinical); 2) after esophagectomy alone (pathologic); and 3) after preresection therapy followed by esophagectomy (postneoadjuvant pathologic). The addition of clinical and postneoadjuvant pathologic stage groupings was driven by a lack of correspondence of survival, and thus prognosis, between both clinical and postneoadjuvant pathologic cancer categories (facts about the cancer) and pathologic categories. This was revealed by a machine-learning analysis of 6-continent data from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration, with consensus of the AJCC Upper GI Expert Panel. Survival is markedly affected by histopathologic cell type (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma) in clinically and pathologically staged patients, requiring separate stage grouping for each cell type. However, postneoadjuvant pathologic stage groups are identical. For the future, more refined and granular data are needed. This requires: 1) more accurate clinical staging; 2) innovative solutions to pathologic staging challenges in endoscopically resected cancers; 3) integration of genomics into staging; and 4) precision cancer care with targeted therapy. It is the responsibility of the oncology team to accurately determine and record registry data, which requires eliminating both common errors and those related to incompleteness and inconsistency. Despite the new complexity of eighth edition staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction, these key concepts and new directions will facilitate precision cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:304-317. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Using the National Cancer Database for Outcomes Research: A Review.

Importance: The National Cancer Database (NCDB), a joint quality improvement initiative of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society, has created a shared research file that has changed the study of cancer care in the United States. A thorough understanding of the nuances, strengths, and limitations of the database by both readers and investigators is of critical importance. This review describes the use of the NCDB to study cancer care, with a focus on the advantages of using the database and important considerations that affect the interpretation of NCDB studies. Observations: The NCDB is one of the largest cancer registries in the world and has rapidly become one of the most commonly used data resources to study the care of cancer in the United States. The NCDB paints a comprehensive picture of cancer care, including a number of less commonly available details that enable subtle nuances of treatment to be studied. On the other hand, several potentially important patient and treatment attributes are not collected in the NCDB, which may affect the extent to which comparisons can be adjusted. Finally, the NCDB has undergone several significant changes during the past decade that may affect its completeness and the types of available data. Conclusions and Relevance: The NCDB offers a critically important perspective on cancer care in the United States. To capitalize on its strengths and adjust for its limitations, investigators and their audiences should familiarize themselves with the advantages and shortcomings of the NCDB, as well as its evolution over time.

The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a "population-based" to a more "personalized" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as "what's new" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Availability of TNM Staging Data Elements in the Medical Record and Training Needs Assessment: Results from the 2014 SEER Training Needs Assessment for TNM Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the cancer registry community will directly assign T, N and M components of stage. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program implemented a field study to determine how often T, N and M were not available in the medical record, requiring the registrar to directly assign clinical or pathologic TNM stage components. The field study also identified specific training needs. METHODS: T, N and M status were collected from multiple sources within medical records for a total of 280 cases, 56 each from breast, prostate, colon, lung, and ovarian cancer. TNM data elements were also directly assigned by a series of reviewers and by study participants using the medical records with TNM information redacted. Availability of physician-assigned TNM was estimated from the medical record. Also, participant responses were compared to preferred answers. RESULTS: Pathologic T, N and M were available more often in the medical records than were clinical values and varied by site. Pathologic T and N were available for about two-thirds of the cases, but the clinical elements were available for only about 20% of cases. The agreement between participant responses and review panel assignments varied by data element and cancer site. Agreement was modest for most data elements and cancer sites, ranging from 54% for clinical T to 92% for clinical M for all cancer sites combined. CONCLUSIONS: The data elements for TNM staging and stage group were often missing from the medical records, so registrars in the field will need to assign TNM frequently. Furthermore, the results of this study strongly suggest that more training is required, even among those who currently assign TNM.