Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Farasat, Siegrid Yu, V. Neel, K. Nehal, Thomas Lardaro, M. Mihm, D. Byrd, C. Balch, J. Califano, A. Chuang, W. Sharfman, J. Shah, P. Nghiem, C. Otley, A. Tufaro, T. Johnson, A. Sober, N. Liégeois (2011)
A new American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: creation and rationale for inclusion of tumor (T) characteristics.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 64 6
Pritesh Karia, A. Jambusaria-Pahlajani, D. Harrington, G. Murphy, A. Qureshi, C. Schmults (2014)
Evaluation of American Joint Committee on Cancer, International Union Against Cancer, and Brigham and Women's Hospital tumor staging for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 32 4
H. Breuninger, K. Brantsch, T. Eigentler, H. Häfner (2012)
Comparison and evaluation of the current staging of cutaneous carcinomasJDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft, 10
I. Roscher, R. Falk, Linda Vos, O. Clausen, P. Helsing, P. Gjersvik, T. Robsahm (2018)
Notice of Retraction and Replacement: Roscher et al. Validating 4 Staging Systems for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Using Population-Based Data: A Nested Case-Control Study. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(4):428-434.JAMA dermatology, 154 12
Breuninger (2012)
579J Dtsch Dermatol Ges, 10
I. Roscher, R. Falk, Linda Vos, O. Clausen, P. Helsing, P. Gjersvik, T. Robsahm (2018)
Validating 4 Staging Systems for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Using Population-Based Data: A Nested Case-Control StudyJAMA Dermatology, 154
M. Migden, D. Rischin, C. Schmults, A. Guminski, A. Hauschild, K. Lewis, C. Chung, L. Hernandez-Aya, A. Lim, A. Chang, G. Rabinowits, A. Thai, L. Dunn, B. Hughes, N. Khushalani, B. Modi, D. Schadendorf, Bo Gao, F. Seebach, Siyu Li, Jingjin Li, M. Mathias, J. Booth, K. Mohan, E. Stankevich, H. Babiker, I. Braña, M. Gil-Martin, J. Homsi, M. Johnson, V. Moreno, J. Niu, T. Owonikoko, K. Papadopoulos, G. Yancopoulos, I. Lowy, M. Fury (2018)
PD‐1 Blockade with Cemiplimab in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous‐Cell CarcinomaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 379
Ashford (2017)
1462Head Neck, 39
S. Durinck, Christine Ho, Nicholas Wang, W. Liao, L. Jakkula, E. Collisson, J. Pons, Sai-Wing Chan, E. Lam, Catherine Chu, Kyunghee Park, Sung-woo Hong, Joe Hur, Nam Huh, I. Neuhaus, Siegrid Yu, R. Grekin, T. Mauro, J. Cleaver, P. Kwok, P. Leboit, G. Getz, K. Cibulskis, J. Aster, Haiyan Huang, E. Purdom, Jian Li, L. Bolund, S. Arron, J. Gray, P. Spellman, R. Cho (2011)
Temporal dissection of tumorigenesis in primary cancers.Cancer discovery, 1 2
B. Ashford, Jonathan Clark, Ruta Gupta, N. Iyer, Bing Yu, M. Ranson (2017)
Reviewing the genetic alterations in high‐risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: A search for prognostic markers and therapeutic targetsHead & Neck, 39
Roscher
Notice of retraction and replacement: Roscher et al. “Validating 4 staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma using population-based data: a nested case-control study.” JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(4):428-434 [published online November 7, 2018].JAMA Dermatol
W. Lydiatt, S. Patel, B. O'Sullivan, M. Brandwein, J. Ridge, Jocelyn Migliacci, Ashley Loomis, J. Shah (2017)
Head and neck cancers—major changes in the American Joint Committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging manualCA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 67
Opinion EDITORIAL Staging Systems to Predict Metastatic Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Unsatisfactory for Clinical Use, but Some Less So? Ivo Abraham, PhD; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, MD siderable uncertainty. Correct classification rates were mod- Disease staging systems play 2 critical roles in oncology. In the first instance, these systems summarize the extent of a pa- est at best and were weakened by significant uncertainty as tient’s cancer at the time of diagnosis and disease progression, well. The rates also indicated that about one-quarter to one- by including information on the tumor characteristics at the pri- third of patients were classified incorrectly—hardly an encour- mary site (eg, location, size, histologic features, etc) as well as aging finding when the issue is whether clinicians can advise locoregional (lymph node involvement) and distant meta- patients, reasonably so, as to whether they will or will not de- static state. Second, clinicians use these systems to evaluate velop metastatic disease. treatment options, assess prognosis, and plan their patients’ The Breuninger and BWH staging systems seemed to differ- care. Ideally, staging systems should have strong prognostic entiate from the 2 AJCC staging systems in terms of the C-index value so that clinicians can inform patients, with a
JAMA Dermatology – American Medical Association
Published: Dec 7, 2018
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.