- Staging is the clinical or pathological assessment of the extent of tumour spread
- Clinical staging is a preoperative assessment
- It is based on clinical, radiological and operative information
- Used to determine treatment offered to the patient
- Pathological staging is a postoperative assessment
- Provides useful prognostic information
- Allows decisions to be made regarding adjuvant therapy
- Allows comparison of treatment outcomes between different centres
Staging systems
- The ideal staging system should be:
- Easy to use and remember
- Reproducible - not subject to inter or intra-observer variation
- Based on prognostically important pathological factors
TNM system
- Based on anatomical extent of spread
- T refers to the extent of primary tumour
- N refers to the extent of nodal metastases
- M refers to the presence or absence of distant metastases
- Two classifications are described for each site
- Clinical classification (TNM)
- Pathological classification (pTNM)
| T - primary tumour |
| Tx |
primary tumour can not be assessed |
| To |
no evidence of primary tumour |
| Tis |
carcinoma in-situ |
| T1-4 |
increasing size and local extent of primary tumour |
| N - regional lymph nodes |
| Nx |
regional lymph nodes can not be assessed |
| N0 |
no regional lymph node metastases |
| N1-3 |
increasing involvement of regional lymph nodes |
| M - distant metastases |
| Mx |
distant metastases can not be assessed |
| M0 |
no distant metastases |
| M1 |
distant metastases present |
- The TNM system is generally accepted
- Does not recorded all factors (e.g. grade, contiguous organ involvement) that is prognostically important
Dukes staging of colorectal cancer
- First published in 1932 for rectal cancers
- Now used for all rectal and colonic cancers
- Duke's A - spread into submucosa but not through muscle
- Duke's B - spread through muscle but nodes negative
- Duke's C - lymph node metastases present
- Often divided into C1 and C2 dependent on the involvement of the highest lymph node
- Advantages of the Dukes classification are that it
- Is simple and reproducible
- Accurately reflects prognosis
- Accepted nationally and internationally
Bibliography
Sobin L H. TNM: principles, history and relation to other prognostic factors. Cancer
2001; 91 (Suppl 8): S1589-1592.
Yarbro J W, Page D L, Fielding L P, Partridge E E, Murphy G P. American Joint
Committee on Cancer prognostic factors consensus conference. Cancer 1999; 86: 2436-2446. |