The importance of correct stage grouping in oncology. Results of a nationwide study of oropharyngeal carcinoma in The Netherlands.

Background: In the frame of a nationwide study of oropharyngeal carcinoma in the Netherlands (1986-1990), the current International Union Against Cancer 1992/American Joint Committee on Cancer 1988 staging system was evaluated with respect to patient distribution and prognostic value.

Methods: Data related to epidemiology, treatment and survival from 640 patients referred for primary treatment were analyzed. Staging was first evaluated in a proportional-hazard regression analysis controlled for these data. Next, all possible combinations of T, N, and M were tested in a stepwise backward elimination model until all remaining indicator variables had a P value of less than 0.05. New stages were defined, based on the coefficients of the remaining indicator variables.

Results: The revised stages revealed two advantages compared with the UICC 1992/AJCC 1988 version: a more balanced distribution of patients (31% in Stage I, 31% in Stage II, 18% in Stage III, 14% in Stage IV, and 5% unknown in the revised staging system versus 7% in Stage I, 17% in Stage II, 24% in Stage III, 50% in Stage IV, and 2% unknown in the UICC 1992/AJCC 1988 staging system), and an improved prognostic discrimination for the disease specific survival (5-year results in the revised staging were 67% in Stage I, 42% in Stage II, 28% in Stage III, and 11% in Stage IV, versus 68% in Stage I, 64% in Stage II, 44% in Stage III and 27% in Stage IV in UICC 1992/AJCC 1988).

Conclusion: Improvements in the current staging system in patient distribution in the stages in prognostic discrimination is feasible by regrouping the T, N, and M but without redefining the categories themselves.