The seventh edition of TNM staging system on TDs satisfactorily predicts patients' outcome for those without LNM. Patients who categorized as T3N2bM0TD (+) and T4N2bM0TD (-/+) should be reclassified as stage IV. Number of TDs was not an independent prognostic parameter in the TNM staging system.

ObjectiveThe aim of the current study was to investigate which is the most suitable classification for colorectal cancer, log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) classification or the classifications based on the number of positive lymph nodes (pN) and positive lymph node ratio(LNR) in a Chinese single institutional population.DesignClinicopathologic and prognostic data of 1297 patients with colorectal cancer were retrospectively studied. The log-rank statistics, Cox's proportional hazards model, the Nagelkerke R2 index and a Harrell's C statistic were used.ResultsUnivariate and three-step multivariate analyses identified that LNR was a significant prognostic factor and LNR classification was superior to both the pN and LODDS classifications. Moreover, the results of the Nagelkerke R2 index (0.130) and a Harrell's C statistic (0.707) of LNR showed that LNR and LODDS classifications were similar and LNR was a little better than the other two classifications. Furthermore, for patients in each LNR classification, prognosis was homologous between those in different pN or LODDS classifications. However, for patients in pN1a, pN1b, LODDS2 and LODDS3 classifications, significant differences in survival were observed among patients in different LNR classifications.ConclusionsFor patients with colorectal cancer, the LNR classification is more suitable than pN and LODDS classifications for prognostic assessment in a Chinese single institutional population.

BackgroundWhether the 7th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system (AJCC-7) is a successful revision remains debatable. We aimed to compare the predictive capacity of the AJCC-7 for colorectal cancer with the 6th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system (AJCC-6).MethodsThe National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) dataset consisting of 158,483 records was used in this study. We evaluated the predictive capacity of the two editions of the staging system using Harrell’s C index and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).ResultsThere was a significant prognostic difference between patients at stage IIB and IIC (P < 0.001). Stage III patients with similar prognoses were adequately sub-grouped in the same stage according to AJCC-7. The Harrell’s C index revealed a value of 0.7692 for AJCC-7, which was significantly better than 0.7663 for AJCC-6 (P < 0.001). BIC analysis provided consistent results (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that AJCC-7 is superior to the AJCC-6 staging system in predictive capacity.

No abstract

rN categories have more potential for predicting patient outcomes and are superior to the UICC/AJCC pN categories. We recommend rN categories for prognostic assessment and rN categories should be reported routinely in histopathological reports.

No abstract

ObjectiveOver the past decades, many studies have used data mining technology to predict the 5-year survival rate of colorectal cancer, but there have been few reports that compared multiple data mining algorithms to the TNM classification of malignant tumors (TNM) staging system using a dataset in which the training and testing data were from different sources. Here we compared nine data mining algorithms to the TNM staging system for colorectal survival analysis.MethodsTwo different datasets were used: 1) the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results dataset; and 2) the dataset from a single Chinese institution. An optimization and prediction system based on nine data mining algorithms as well as two variable selection methods was implemented. The TNM staging system was based on the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system.ResultsWhen the training and testing data were from the same sources, all algorithms had slight advantages over the TNM staging system in predictive accuracy. When the data were from different sources, only four algorithms (logistic regression, general regression neural network, Bayesian networks, and Naïve Bayes) had slight advantages over the TNM staging system. Also, there was no significant differences among all the algorithms (p>0.05).ConclusionsThe TNM staging system is simple and practical at present, and data mining methods are not accurate enough to replace the TNM staging system for colorectal cancer survival prediction. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the predictive accuracy of all the algorithms when the data were from different sources. Building a larger dataset that includes more variables may be important for furthering predictive accuracy.

Due to the high heterogeneity of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), molecular subtype based on gene expression profiles is of great significance for diagnosis and prognosis prediction in patients with LUAD. Invasion‐related genes were obtained from the CancerSEA database, and LUAD expression profiles were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas. The ConsensusClusterPlus was used to obtain molecular subtypes based on invasion‐related genes. The limma software package was used to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs). A multi‐gene risk model was constructed by Lasso‐Cox analysis. A nomogram was also constructed based on risk scores and meaningful clinical features. 3 subtypes (C1, C2 and C3) based on the expression of 97 invasion‐related genes were obtained. C3 had the worst prognosis. A total of 669 DEGs were identified among the subtypes. Pathway enrichment analysis results showed that the DEGs were mainly enriched in the cell cycle, DNA replication, the p53 signalling pathway and other tumour‐related pathways. A 5‐gene signature (KRT6A, MELTF, IRX5, MS4A1 and CRTAC1) was identified by using Lasso‐Cox analysis. The training, validation and external independent cohorts proved that the model was robust and had better prediction ability than other lung cancer models. The gene expression results showed that the expression levels of MS4A1 and KRT6A in tumour tissues were higher than in normal tissues, while CRTAC1 expression in tumour tissues was lower than in normal tissues. The 5‐gene signature prognostic stratification system based on invasion‐related genes could be used to assess prognostic risk in patients with LUAD.