%0 Journal Article
%T UICC and AJCC 8th edition tumor-nodes-metastasis (TNM) classifications for patients treated with radical prostatectomy: reliable but not infallible prognostic tools
%A Felix Preisser
%A Marco Bandini
%J Archive of "Annals of Translational Medicine".
%D 2019
%R 10.21037/atm.2019.02.26
%X We read with interest the article by Herden and colleagues (1) regarding the validation of the UICC and AJCC 8th edition tumor-nodes-metastasis (TNM) system on a German community-based dataset. In this study, the authors analyzed data derived from the HAROW study (n=2,957), a prospective, non-interventional, health service research study examining various treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer (¡Ü cT2c). Within their study, Herden and colleagues selected all patients that underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) (n=1,738, 58.8%) with available pathologic information and follow-up data (n=515). For validation purpose, the authors stratified the patients in either cT1 or cT2, S I (¡Ü T2a) or S II (T2b/c), and prognostic stage group (PSG) I, PSG IIA, PSG IIB or PSG ¡Ý IIC according to the TNM classification and World Health Organization (WHO) grading. All groups were compared regarding proportion of organ confined disease (¡Ü pT2) and extraprostatic extension (¡Ý pT3) after RP, as well as favorable (¡Ü2) and unfavorable (¡Ý3) WHO grade group, or favorable (¡Ü7a) and unfavorable (¡Ý7b) Gleason Score after RP, respectively. Finally, biochemical recurrence free-survival (BFS) was examined and compared between groups in each classification systems
%U https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462615/