Global consultation on cancer staging: promoting consistent understanding and use

Disease burden is the most important determinant of survival in patients with cancer. This domain, reflected by the cancer stage and codified using the tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, is a fundamental determinant of prognosis. Accurate and consistent tumour classification is required for the development and use of treatment guidelines and to enable clinical research (including clinical trials), cancer surveillance and control. Furthermore, knowledge of the extent and stage of disease is frequently important in the context of translational studies. Attempts to include additional prognostic factors in staging classifications, in order to facilitate a more accurate determination of prognosis, are often made with a lack of knowledge and understanding and are one of the main causes of the inconsistent use of terms and definitions. This effect has resulted in uncertainty and confusion, thus limiting the utility of the TNM classification. In this Position paper, we provide a consensus on the optimal use and terminology for cancer staging that emerged from a consultation process involving representatives of several major international organizations involved in cancer classification. The consultation involved several steps: a focused literature review; a stakeholder survey; and a consultation meeting. This aim of this Position paper is to provide a consensus that should guide the use of staging terminology and secure the classification of anatomical disease extent as a distinct aspect of cancer classification

Global consultation on cancer staging: promoting consistent understanding and use

Disease burden is the most important determinant of survival in patients with cancer. This domain, reflected by the cancer stage and codified using the tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, is a fundamental determinant of prognosis. Accurate and consistent tumour classification is required for the development and use of treatment guidelines and to enable clinical research (including clinical trials), cancer surveillance and control. Furthermore, knowledge of the extent and stage of disease is frequently important in the context of translational studies. Attempts to include additional prognostic factors in staging classifications, in order to facilitate a more accurate determination of prognosis, are often made with a lack of knowledge and understanding and are one of the main causes of the inconsistent use of terms and definitions. This effect has resulted in uncertainty and confusion, thus limiting the utility of the TNM classification. In this Position paper, we provide a consensus on the optimal use and terminology for cancer staging that emerged from a consultation process involving representatives of several major international organizations involved in cancer classification. The consultation involved several steps: a focused literature review; a stakeholder survey; and a consultation meeting. This aim of this Position paper is to provide a consensus that should guide the use of staging terminology and secure the classification of anatomical disease extent as a distinct aspect of cancer classification

Connective tissue activation

Connective tissue activating peptide-III (CTAP-III) isolated from human platelets is a potent mitogen for human connective tissue cells in culture in addition to stimulating glycosaminoglycan synthesis, glucose consumption, and lactate formation. The amino acid composition of apparently homogeneous CTAP-III was determined, confirming the presence of two disulfide links and providing a calculated molecular weight of 11,633 daltons. Comparison of the mitogenic activity of serum and plasma-serum suggests that CTAP-III is a major mitogenic component of human serum. Seventeen strains of human connective tissue cells (synovial, cartilage, dermal and thyroid) incorporated [ 3 H]-thymidine at up to 30 times control at levels under the influence of microgram quantities of CTAP-III and caused detectable increases in thymidine incorporation at levels as low as 10–29 ng/ml. Prostaglandin E 1 (0.01 Μg/ml) and dibutyryl cyclic AMP (25 Μg/ml) potentiated the glycosaminoglycan stimulating effect of CTAP-III, but not its mitogenic effect. Cycloheximide and actinomycin D blocked the biologic actions of CTAP-III. Cortisol and penicillamine had little effect on the mitogenic activity of CTAP-III, whereas antirheumatic agents such as acetylsalicylic acid and phenylbutazone opposed the mitogenic activity when added to cultures at clinically relevant concentrations. A weak antiheparin factor secreted by platelets, low affinity platelet factor 4 (LA-PF 4 ), was shown to be similar to CTAP-III in biologic actions, electrophoretic mobility, amino acid composition, and antigenic determinants.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/37739/1/1780220308_ftp.pd

Randomized comparison of ABVD chemotherapy with a strategy that includes radiation therapy in patients with limited-stage Hodgkins lymphoma

A B S T R A C T Purpose We report results of a randomized trial comparing ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) chemotherapy alone with treatment that includes radiation therapy in patients with limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Patients and Methods Patients with nonbulky clinical stage I to IIA Hodgkin's lymphoma were stratified into favorable and unfavorable risk cohorts. Patients allocated to radiation-containing therapy received subtotal nodal radiation if favorable risk or combined-modality therapy if unfavorable risk. Patients allocated to ABVD received four to six treatment cycles. Results We evaluated 399 patients. Median follow-up is 4.2 years. In comparison with ABVD alone, 5-year freedom from disease progression is superior in patients allocated to radiation therapy (P ϭ .006; 93% v 87%); no differences in event-free survival (P ϭ .06; 88% v 86%) or overall survival (P ϭ .4; 94% v 96%) were detected. In a subset analyses comparing patients stratified into the unfavorable cohort, freedom from disease progression was superior in patients allocated to combined-modality treatment (P ϭ .004; 95% v 88%); no difference in overall survival was detected (P ϭ .3; 92% v 95%). Of 15 deaths observed, nine were attributed to causes other than Hodgkin's lymphoma or acute treatment-related toxicity. Conclusion In patients with limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, no difference in overall survival was detected between patients randomly assigned to receive treatment that includes radiation therapy or ABVD alone. Although 5-year freedom from disease progression was superior in patients receiving radiation therapy, this advantage is offset by deaths due to causes other than progressive Hodgkin's lymphoma or acute treatment-related toxicity

Expanding global access to radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015-35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015-35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries,$62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to$184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income,$33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries-a total of$96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015-35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015-35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015-35 (-$14·9 billion in low-income countries; -$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (-$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and$95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits