Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Staging System for Disseminated Appendiceal Cancer Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Multi-institutional Analysis

SenthilKumar, Gopika; Kothari, Anai N.; Maduekwe, Ugwuji N.; Fournier, Keith F.; Abbott, Daniel E.; Wilson, Gregory C.; Patel, Sameer H.; Greer, Jonathan B.; Johnston, Fabian M.; Dineen, Seán; Powers, Benjamin D.; Baumgartner, Joel M.; Veerapong, Jula; Leiting, Jennifer L.; Grotz, Travis E.; Maithel, Shishir K.; Staley, Charles A.; Raoof, Mustafa; Lambert, Laura; Lee, Andrew; Kim, Alex; Cloyd, Jordan M.; Mogal, Harveshp

doi:10.1245/s10434-023-13697-9

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently used staging protocols for appendix neoplasms are based on the 8th edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system; however, the 9th edition was recently published [19,20]. The staging system for carcinomas of the appendix (Tables 1 and 2) applies to adenocarcinomas (and variants), GCC, mucinous neoplasms, and small-cell and large-cell (poorly differentiated) neuroendocrine carcinoma [21,22]. The 8th Cancers 2024, 16, 866 4 of 14 AJCC protocol for NET (Table 3) of the appendix is applicable to well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors.…”

Section: Grading and Staging Of Atsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 3. The 8th edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for NET of the appendix [22] and differences in staging: ENET guidelines [24].…”

Section: M1cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 8th edition of the AJCC staging system for NET of the appendix [22] Differences in staging: ENET guidelines [24] T-primary tumor T0 There is no indication or evidence of a primary tumor.…”

Section: M1cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 8th edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for GIST of the appendix[22].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Current Status of Treatment among Patients with Appendiceal Tumors—Old Challenges and New Solutions?

Chawrylak,

Leśniewska,

Mielniczek

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of the digestive system distinguishes four categories of appendiceal tumors (ATs): serrated lesions and polyps, mucinous neoplasms, adenocarcinomas, and neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). The differential diagnosis of ATs can be challenging in medical practice, due to their rarity and lack of data from randomized controlled trials on a large, diverse group of patients. ATs are usually noted in specimens obtained during appendectomies due to clinical acute appendicitis. In the European population, most ATs (65%) occur over the age of 50 and among women (56.8%). According to histological type, 54.6% are neuroendocrine tumors (NETs); 26.8% cystic, mucinous, and serous neoplasms; and 18.6% adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS). On pathologic analysis, most AT findings are benign lesions or small NENs that do not require further therapeutic measures. The presence of appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (AMN) can lead to pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). While the multimodal treatment for abdominal malignancies has evolved over the past several decades, the clinical workup and treatment of ATs remain a challenge. Therefore, this review aims to describe the diagnostic possibilities, molecular-based diagnosis, staging, differences in the treatment process, and prognostic factors associated with ATs.

show abstract

Section: Grading and Staging Of Atsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 3. The 8th edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for NET of the appendix [22] and differences in staging: ENET guidelines [24].…”

Section: M1cmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Current Status of Treatment among Patients with Appendiceal Tumors—Old Challenges and New Solutions?

Chawrylak,

Leśniewska,

Mielniczek

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of cytoreduction for palliation or treatment of metastatic cancer is practiced for several visceral malignancies including ovarian, gastrointestinal, and renal cell carcinoma [ 1 – 3 ]. The role of cytoreduction in metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) is largely experimental in humans, but murine models suggest reduced metastatic disease progression, reduced prostate specific antigen (PSA) velocity, and perhaps prolonged survival [ 4 , 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive cytoreductive radical prostatectomy, exploring the safety and feasibility of a single-port or multi-port robotic platform

Lama,

Thomas,

Vernez

et al. 2024

BMC Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Consolidative resection or cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP) may benefit men with non-organ confined prostate cancer. We report the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic CRP using a single-port (SP) or multi-port (MP) platform. Methods We reviewed consecutive men with clinical node positive or metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer who underwent IRB-approved CRP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection using the da Vinci SP or MP Surgical Systems (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) from 2015–2022. Perioperative data and Clavien-Dindo 90-day complications were recorded. Results Twenty-four men with a median age of 61 (IQR 56—69) years and prostate-specific antigen of 32.1 (IQR 21.9—62.3) ng/mL were included. Clinical N1, M1, or N1 + M1 disease were detected in 8 (33%), 9 (38%), 7 (29%) patients, respectively. There was no difference in positive margins, 41% vs. 29% (P = 0.67), lymph node yield, 21 (IQR 14–28) vs. 20 (IQR 13.5–21) nodes (P = 0.31), or estimated blood loss, 150 mL (IQR 100–200) vs. 50 mL (IQR 50–125) (P = 0.06), between the MP and SP cohorts, respectively. Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for the SP group, same-day discharge (IQR 0–0), compared to MP, 1-day (IQR 1–1), P < 0.001. One grade III bowel obstruction and lymphocele occurred in the MP cohort. No major complications occurred in the SP cohort. Conclusion Robot-assisted laparoscopic CRP is safe and feasible for select men with advanced castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

show abstract

ASO Author Reflections: AJCC 8th Edition Performs Well in Predicting Outcomes Among Patients with Disseminated Appendiceal Cancer Undergoing CRS/HIPEC

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Staging System for Disseminated Appendiceal Cancer Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Multi-institutional Analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Current Status of Treatment among Patients with Appendiceal Tumors—Old Challenges and New Solutions?

Current Status of Treatment among Patients with Appendiceal Tumors—Old Challenges and New Solutions?

Minimally invasive cytoreductive radical prostatectomy, exploring the safety and feasibility of a single-port or multi-port robotic platform

ASO Author Reflections: AJCC 8th Edition Performs Well in Predicting Outcomes Among Patients with Disseminated Appendiceal Cancer Undergoing CRS/HIPEC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About