Prognostic significance of tumor deposits in radically resected gastric cancer: a retrospective study of a cohort of 1915 Chinese individuals

Table 5 Comparison of the performance of the TNM staging system and other revised staging systems for GC

Year	Authors	Description	TNM stage edition	χ²	AUC	95% CI	C-index	95% CI	AIC (f)
2011	Wang W. et al.	Presence of TDs (1–2) as pN3 category. Presence of TDs (≥ 3) as M1 category.	7^a	609.13	0.837	0.817–0.857	0.798	0.782–0.814	7102.251
2012 2017	Sun Z. et al. Anup S. et al.	Presence of TDs as T4a	7	603.16	0.834	0.814–0.854	0.795	0.779–0.811	7106.225
2013	Lee H.S. et al.	1 TD as 1 positive LN; revised N category	7^b	612.53	0.832	0.812–0.852	0.793	0.777–0.809	7096.855
2017	AJCC	8th GC’s TNM stage (without TDs)	8	603.77	0.834	0.814–0.855	0.795	0.779–0.811	7105.614
2017	AJCC	1 TD as 1 positive LN (8th GC’s TNM N category)	8	628.90	0.841	0.821–0.861	0.800	0.784–0.816	7080.478
2018	Chen H. et al.	Presence of TDs upstage N stage except for N3b	8	615.94	0.839	0.819–0.859	0.801	0.785–0.817	7093.440
2019	Liang Y. et al.	Presence of TDs upstage N category as follows: N0→mN2; N1→mN2; N2→mN3a. Others unmentioned remained unchanged.	8	630.49	0.841	0.821–0.861	0.800	0.784–0.816	7078.888
2019	Tan J. et al.	Presence of TDs as N3	7^a	606.83	0.836	0.816–0.857	0.797	0.781–0.813	7102.546
2020	Gu L. et al.	Presence of TDs upstage TNM stage except for IIIC	8	643.57	0.843	0.823–0.864	0.805	0.789–0.821	7065.813

Abbreviations: AIC Akaike information criterion, AUC area under the curve, CI confidence interval, GC gastric cancer, LNs lymph nodes, TD tumor deposit
Larger χ², AUC, and C–index values and a smaller AIC value indicate that the system has a better discriminative ability
^aWe used the 8th edition of the TNM staging system for GC in our validation, but in these two proposals, N3 was not further divided into N3a or N3b, so we could only use the 7th edition of the TNM staging system for GC
^bN category was revised

ISSN: 1477-7819