Objective:To improve the prognostic accuracy of the eighth edition of AJCC staging system for pNETs with establishment and validation of a new staging system.Background:Validation of the updated eighth AJCC staging system for pNETs has been limited and controversial.Methods:Data from the SEER registry (1975-2016) (n = 3303) and a multi-institutional database (2000-2016) (n = 825) was used as development and validation cohorts, respectively. A mTNM was proposed by maintaining the eighth AJCC T and M definitions, and the recently proposed N status as N0 (no LNM), N1 (1-3 LNM), and N2 (≥4 LNM), but adopting a new stage classification.Results:The eighth TNM staging system failed to stratify patients with stage I versus IIA, stage IIB versus IIIA, and overall stage I versus II relative to long-Term OS in both database. There was a monotonic decrement in survival based on the proposed mTNM staging classification among patients derived from both the SEER (5-year OS, stage I 87.0% vs stage II 80.3% vs stage III 72.9% vs stage IV 57.2%, all P < 0.001), and multi-institutional (5-year OS, stage I 97.6% vs stage II 82.7% vs stage III 78.4% vs stage IV 50.0%, all P < 0.05) datasets. On multivariable analysis, mTNM staging remained strongly associated with prognosis, as the hazard of death incrementally increased with each stage among patients in the 2 cohorts.Conclusion:A mTNM pNETs clinical staging system using N0, N1, N2 nodal categories was better at stratifying patients relative to long-Term OS than the eighth AJCC staging.
- Neuroendocrine tumor
- Staging manual