Background: Based on review of patient data in case conferences over time, we hypothesized that clinically relevant data are omitted in routine soft tissue sarcoma staging.
Methods: We examined subsets of a prospectively collected single institution soft tissue sarcoma database with respect to criteria of the AJCC versions 6 (2002) and 7 (2010) staging systems and examined their clinical outcomes.
Results: Relapse-free survival decreases with increasing primary tumor size in four categories, versus two categories used in AJCC 6 and 7 staging. Disease-specific survival decreases over three categories. Conversely, omission of tumor depth as a prognostic factor in version 7 appears supported, since tumor depth is not an independent risk factor for disease-specific survival by multivariate analysis. Patients with nodal disease and no other metastases fare better than patients with other metastases, but have inferior outcomes compared with patients with large high-grade tumors without nodal metastasis. Multivariate analysis identified size, site, grade, age, nodal metastatic disease, and other metastatic disease as independent risk factors for disease-specific survival. Versions 6 and 7 criteria are tacit regarding anatomic site and histology for tumors with identical FNCLCC grade.
Conclusions: Improved patient risk assessment may be achieved by staging using a larger number of size categories. Staging system refinements come at the cost of a larger number of staging categories. Histology or site-specific staging systems, nomograms or Bayesian belief networks may provide more accurate means to assess clinical outcomes.