Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

E-Poster Display

1091P - Performance of Salamanca's refinement of the AJCC8 for T3 cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), versus the Brigham and Women's Hospital's alternative staging system and the Tübingen's alternative staging system for high-risk CSCC

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

Tumour Site

Basal Cell and Squamous Cell Cancers of the Skin

Presenters

Laura Puebla-Tornero

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S672-S710. 10.1016/annonc/annonc280

Authors

L. Puebla-Tornero1, L. Corchete-Sánchez2, A. Conde-Ferreirós1, N. García-Sancha2, R. Corchado-Cobos2, M.E. Cardeñoso-Álvarez1, C. Román-Curto1, J. Cañueto1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Dermatology, University Hospital of Salamanca, 37007 - Salamanca/ES
  • 2 Laboratory 7, IBMCC/CSIC-University of Salamanca, 37007 - Salamanca/ES

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1091P

Background

The AJCC8 shows heterogeneity for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). The Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and the Tübingen’s stratification systems offer different proposals to AJCC8 and our group identified prognostic subgroups within T3-AJCC8, where most high-risk CSCCs are classified. The objective of this study was to compare the distinctiveness, homogeneity, monotonicity, prognostic accuracy and concordance of these alternative staging systems for the subset of high-risk CSCC staged as T3-AJCC8.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of 196 cases of high-risk CSCC. All tumors were classified according the three alterative staging systems. Pair-wise comparison was performed through McNeemar test, and distinctiveness, homogeneity and monotonicity of the staging systems were also assesed. The prognostic accuracy was compared by means for Akaike AIC and BIC indexes and the concordance among staging systems was later compared by means of Harrell’s C-index and Gonen and Heller’s concordance probability estimation (CPE).

Results

The AJCC8-T3b/T3c represented 51.5% of the total cases, the BWH-T2b/T3 47.4% and the Tübingen system (3-4 points) 34.2%. BWH’s and Salamanca’s showed some overlap between each other and differ from Tübingen’s. The prognostic accuracy revealed that Tübingen’s is more efficient for local recurrence, and Salamanca’s and BWH’s are better for major events and for disease-specific death. Concordance analysis is better with any of the alternative systems than with the official AJCC8.

Conclusions

Alternative staging systems may partially overcome the heterogeneity and low prognostic accuracy of AJCC8 and stratify high risk CSCC more precisely. The combination of risk factors should be considered in future staging systems for CSCC.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Javier Cañueto.

Funding

Javier Cañueto is partially supported by the grants PI18/000587 (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Cofinanciado con Fondos FEDER).

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.