Premium
TNM residual tumor classification revisited
Author(s) -
Wittekind Christian,
Compton Carolyn C.,
Greene Frederick L.,
Sobin Leslie H.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/cncr.10492
Subject(s) - medicine , residual , standardization , disease , classification scheme , intensive care medicine , completeness (order theory) , oncology , machine learning , computer science , algorithm , operating system , mathematical analysis , mathematics
BACKGROUND For cancer patients, prognosis is strongly influenced by the completeness of tumor removal at the time of cancer‐directed surgery or disease remission after nonsurgical treatment with curative intent. These parameters define the relative success of definitive treatment and can be codified by an additional subclassification within the TNM system, the residual tumor (R) classification. Despite the importance of residual tumor status in designing clinical management after treatment, misinterpretation and inconsistent application of the R classification frequently occur that diminish or abrogate its clinical utility. METHODS An analysis of the relevant literature regarding the use and prognostic importance of the R classification was undertaken. RESULTS In the current study, the prognostic importance of the R classification for different kinds of tumors is discussed. Problems that arise in using the R classification are described. Special issues regarding the use of the R classification are addressed. CONCLUSIONS The R classification is a strong indicator of prognosis and facilitates the comparison of treatment results if applied in a consistent manner. Uniform use and interpretation of this classification is essential for the standardization of posttreatment data collection. Cancer 2002;94:2511–9. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10492