» Articles » PMID: 29974295

Comparison of the University of Pittsburgh Staging System and the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Classification for the Prognostic Evaluation of External Auditory Canal Cancer

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2018 Jul 6
PMID 29974295
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The purpose was to compare survival differences between patients with external auditory canal (EAC) cancer treated according to the University of Pittsburgh modified TNM staging system and those treated in accordance with the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual on the TNM staging system for cutaneous cancers of the head and neck.

Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-institution review of 60 patients with EAC cancer treated with curative intent between September 2002 and March 2018. Survival outcomes were measured on the basis of the two staging systems.

Results: The C-index values for the overall survival (OS) rate revealed that the University of Pittsburgh staging system had higher prognostic accuracy than the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system. Univariable and multivariable analysis showed that T classification according to the University of Pittsburgh staging system was an independent predictor of the OS rate (hazard ratio 5.25; 95% confidence interval 1.38-24.9; P = 0.015). Meanwhile, the AJCC staging system could not differentiate T2 from T3-4 cancers.

Conclusion: The University of Pittsburgh staging system for patients with EAC cancer is a valuable tool for use in clinical decision-making and predicting survival outcome.

Citing Articles

The international expert consensus on management of external auditory canal carcinoma.

Zhou P, de Brito R, Cui Y, Lloyd S, Kunst H, Kutz J Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; .

PMID: 39466369 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-024-09033-w.


Treatment outcomes of the external auditory canal and temporal bone malignancy with dura invasion.

Lee Y, Jeong I, Chung J Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023; 8(4):1021-1028.

PMID: 37621272 PMC: 10446266. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.1083.


Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Expecting Its Application in Temporal Bone Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Shi M, Huang J, Sun Y Curr Med Sci. 2023; 43(2):213-222.

PMID: 36971976 DOI: 10.1007/s11596-023-2700-2.


Clinical outcome and prognostic factors in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the external auditory canal: proposal for a refined T-stage classification system.

Lee J, Cho Y Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023; 280(8):3625-3633.

PMID: 36781438 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-023-07876-3.


Surgical Strategy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the External Auditory Canal: Management of Locally Advanced Cases with Skull Base Involvement.

Goto S, Nishio N, Iwami K, Yoshida T, Maruo T, Mukoyama N J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2023; 84(1):69-78.

PMID: 36743718 PMC: 9897898. DOI: 10.1055/a-1733-2585.


References
1.
Hirsch B . Staging system revision. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002; 128(1):93-4. View

2.
Ito M, Hatano M, Yoshizaki T . Prognostic factors for squamous cell carcinoma of the temporal bone: extensive bone involvement or extensive soft tissue involvement?. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009; 129(11):1313-9. DOI: 10.3109/00016480802642096. View

3.
Pfreundner L, Schwager K, Willner J, Baier K, Bratengeier K, Brunner F . Carcinoma of the external auditory canal and middle ear. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999; 44(4):777-88. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00531-8. View

4.
Yin M, Ishikawa K, Honda K, Arakawa T, Harabuchi Y, Nagabashi T . Analysis of 95 cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the external and middle ear. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2006; 33(3):251-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2005.11.012. View

5.
Arriaga M, Curtin H, Takahashi H, Hirsch B, Kamerer D . Staging proposal for external auditory meatus carcinoma based on preoperative clinical examination and computed tomography findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1990; 99(9 Pt 1):714-21. DOI: 10.1177/000348949009900909. View