Featured Article

8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and

esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice
Thomas W. Rice1, Deepa T. Patil2, Eugene H. Blackstone1,3
1
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, 2Department of Pathology, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Institute, 3Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Correspondence to: Thomas W. Rice, MD. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue/Desk JJ-40,
Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Email: ricet@ccf.org.

The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging of epithelial cancers of
the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) presents separate classifications for clinical (cTNM),
pathologic (pTNM), and postneoadjuvant (ypTNM) stage groups. Histopathologic cell type markedly affects
survival of clinically and pathologically staged patients, requiring separate groupings for each cell type, but
ypTNM groupings are identical for both cell types. Clinical categories, typically obtained by imaging with
minimal histologic information, are limited by resolution of each method. Strengths and shortcomings of
clinical staging methods should be recognized. Complementary cytology or histopathology findings may
augment imaging and aid initial treatment decision-making. However, prognostication using clinical stage
groups remains coarse and inaccurate compared with pTNM. Pathologic staging is losing its relevance for
advanced-stage cancer as neoadjuvant therapy replaces esophagectomy alone. However, it remains relevant
for early-stage cancers and as a staging and survival reference point. Although pathologic stage could
facilitate decision-making, its use to direct postoperative adjuvant therapy awaits more effective treatment.
Prognostication using pathologic stage groups is the most refined of all classifications. Postneoadjuvant
staging (ypTNM) is introduced by the AJCC but not adopted by the Union for International Cancer
Control (UICC). Drivers of this addition include absence of equivalent pathologic (pTNM) categories
for categories peculiar to the postneoadjuvant state (ypT0N0-3M0 and ypTisN0-3M0), dissimilar stage
group compositions, and markedly different survival profiles. Thus, prognostication is specific for patients
undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. The role of ypTNM classification in additional treatment decision-making
is currently limited. Precision cancer care advances are necessary for this information to be clinically useful.

Keywords: Clinical stage; pathologic stage; postneoadjuvant stage; decision-making; prognostication; precision
cancer care

Submitted Dec 08, 2016. Accepted for publication Mar 07, 2017.
doi: 10.21037/acs.2017.03.14
View this article at: http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/acs.2017.03.14

Introduction (pTNM), and postneoadjuvant therapy (ypTNM) stage

groupings, and examine its application to clinical practice.
Staging of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric
junction (EGJ), presented in chapter 16 of the 8th edition
American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer 8th edition clinical staging
Staging Manual (1), was derived from a machine-learning
analysis of data from six continents from the Worldwide TNM categories—the facts about cancer—are judged
Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC) (2-7). The clinically (cTNM) based on imaging studies, with minimal
purpose of this manuscript is to review staging in the 8th histologic information. This distinguishes them from
edition, which now includes clinical (cTNM), pathologic pathologic cancer facts (pTNM) obtained by and large

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
120 Rice et al. 8th edition esophageal and EGJ cancer staging

through microscopic examination of resection specimens. is esophageal or gastric. Conflicting statistical analyses
These TNM cancer facts (Table 1) are central to treatment necessitated a “place card” consensus decision; thus, the
decision-making and rely on cTNM being an accurate EGJ was redefined in the 8th edition: adenocarcinomas
reflection of pTNM. with epicenters no more than 2 cm into the gastric cardia
Stage groups are coarse prognostic collections based are staged as esophageal adenocarcinomas, and those
on an amalgamation of cancer facts. That prognostication extending further are staged as stomach cancers (1). The
based on cTNM differs from that based on pTNM reflects genetic signature of EGJ cancers may be more accurate in
inaccuracies of obtaining cancer facts by current clinical identifying the cell of origin for cancer staging rather than
staging modalities. These inaccuracies result in dissimilar its gross location (8,9). Cancer genetics will be a subsequent
stage group composition and survival profiles of cTNM vs. focus of the 9th edition staging of EGJ cancers.
pTNM groups (2,5-7).
Histopathologic cell type markedly affects survival of Histologic cell type
cTNM-staged patients. Survival of early- and intermediate- Biopsy is mandatory and is the principal means of
stage patients is worse for those with squamous cell determining cell type. Because obliterative neoadjuvant
carcinoma than those with adenocarcinoma, necessitating therapy or endoscopic resection may prohibit future
separate stage grouping by cell type. assessment of the primary cancer, this biopsy may provide
Histologic grade (G) markedly affects survival of patients the only facts about the cancer.
with cT1-2N0M0 adenocarcinomas and cT2N0M0 In most instances, classifying cancers as squamous
squamous cell carcinomas. The AJCC Upper Gastrointestinal cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma relies on identifying
Expert Panel, concerned about the accuracy of G on biopsy, features of squamous differentiation (keratin pearl
eliminated G from 8th edition cTNM stage groups, with the formation, intercellular bridges, and cells with abundant
expectation that it would be reexamined for the 9th edition. glassy eosinophilic cytoplasm) versus gland formation
Thus, although cTNM stage groups have been introduced for adenocarcinoma. However, this distinction can be
into the 8th edition, they are more for coarse prognostication challenging in specimens with limited diagnostic material
rather than for decision-making (Table 2). and in higher G cancers. Ancillary markers, such as p63,
p40, and cytokeratin 5/6 for squamous differentiation, and
Alcian blue-PAS stain to demonstrate subtle intracellular
Applications of 8th edition clinical staging (cTNM) to
mucin for adenocarcinoma, can be helpful.
clinical practice

Clinical staging is limited by resolution of imaging methods. cG

Strengths and limitations of each method should be taken cG is important for treatment decisions regarding cT1-
into account when interpreting clinical staging. 2N0M0 adenocarcinomas and cT2N0M0 squamous cell
carcinomas and is a predictor of survival. Unfortunately,
Location (cL) it is inconsistently reported in biopsy specimens, because
Assessment of cancer location (cL) made during superficial biopsy samples may provide limited material to
esophagoscopy is crucial (1). The definition of cL has accurately grade cancer differentiation.
changed from the position of the upper edge of the cancer Additionally, reporting cG has not been required
(7th edition) to its epicenter (8th edition), both referenced previously for biopsy specimens (Table 1). Every attempt
to distance from the incisors. Clinically, the epicenter is should be made to grade cancers using criteria outlined
determined from upper and lower border measurements, by the World Health Organization (10,11). Low-grade
which also provide cancer length. For treatment planning, (G1) and moderately differentiated cancers (G2) are likely
it is critical to know the upper border for cancers of the subject to substantial interobserver variability. However,
cervical and upper thoracic esophagus and the lower border poor differentiation or signet-ring cell morphology (G3)
for cancers of the lower thoracic esophagus and EGJ. are associated with poor outcome (12) and thus must be
Alternatively, cL may be determined from chest computed documented in the biopsy pathology report as cG.
tomography (CT) (1).
EGJ staging has been limited by reliance on simple cT
measurements to determine whether an adenocarcinoma Esophageal ultrasound (EUS) provides detailed examination

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, Vol 6, No 2 March 2017 121

Table 1 Cancer staging categories for cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction
Category Criteria
T category
TX Tumor cannot be assessed
T0 No evidence of primary tumor
Tis High-grade dysplasia, defined as malignant cells confined by the basement membrane
T1 Tumor invades the lamina propria, muscularis mucosae, or submucosa
T1a* Tumor invades the lamina propria or muscularis mucosae
T1b* Tumor invades the submucosa
T2 Tumor invades the muscularis propria
T3 Tumor invades adventitia
T4 Tumor invades adjacent structures
T4a* Tumor invades the pleura, pericardium, azygos vein, diaphragm, or peritoneum
T4b* Tumor invades other adjacent structures, such as aorta, vertebral body, or trachea
N category
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0 No regional lymph node metastasis
N1 Metastasis in 1–2 regional lymph nodes
N2 Metastasis in 3–6 regional lymph nodes
N3 Metastasis in 7 or more regional lymph nodes
M category
M0 No distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis
Adenocarcinoma G Category
GX Differentiation cannot be assessed
G1 Well differentiated. >95% of tumor is composed of well-formed glands
G2 Moderately differentiated. 50% to 95% of tumor shows gland formation
G3† Poorly differentiated. Tumors composed of nest and sheets of cells with <50% of tumor demonstrating glandular
formation
Squamous cell carcinoma G category
GX Differentiation cannot be assessed
G1 Well-differentiated. Prominent keratinization with pearl formation and a minor component of nonkeratinizing basal-like
cells. Tumor cells are arranged in sheets, and mitotic counts are low
G2 Moderately differentiated. Variable histologic features, ranging from parakeratotic to poorly keratinizing lesions.
Generally, pearl formation is absent
G3‡ Poorly differentiated. Consists predominantly of basal-like cells forming large and small nests with frequent central
necrosis. The nests consist of sheets or pavement-like arrangements of tumor cells, and occasionally are punctuated
by small numbers of parakeratotic or keratinizing cells
Squamous cell carcinoma L category***
LX Location unknown
Upper Cervical esophagus to lower border of azygos vein
Middle Lower border of azygos vein to lower border of inferior pulmonary vein
Lower Lower border of inferior pulmonary vein to stomach, including esophagogastric junction
*, subcategories; , if further testing of “undifferentiated” cancers reveals a glandular component, categorize as adenocarcinoma G3; ‡, if
†

further testing of “undifferentiated” cancers reveals a squamous cell component, or if after further testing they remain undifferentiated,
categorize as squamous cell carcinoma G3; ***, location is defined by epicenter of esophageal tumor.

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
122 Rice et al. 8th edition esophageal and EGJ cancer staging

Table 2 Clinical (cTNM) stage groups T3–4 cancers have a high probability of N+ and require
neoadjuvant therapy, while T1–2 cancers are likely N0,
cStage group cT cN cM
requiring resection alone (14).
Squamous cell carcinoma The clinical categorization of cT1–2 cancer directs
0 Tis N0 M0 future therapy. At higher EUS frequencies that focus on
I T1 N0–1 M0
more superficial layers, subclassification of cT1a from cT1b
cancers should be possible. However, most studies have
II T2 N0–1 M0
shown poor accuracy in this subclassification (15-18). EUS
T3 N0 M0 has been reported as unreliable in staging T2N0M0 cancers
III T3 N1 M0 (19,20); therefore, for cT1N0M0 and cT2N0M0 cancers,
additional information is needed for decision-making. For
T1–3 N2 M0
T1N0M0 cancers, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)
IVA T4 N0–2 M0
and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are highly
T1–4 N3 M0 effective in confirming EUS cT1N0M0 and differentiating
IVB T1–4 N0–3 M1 cT1a from cT1b (18,21-23). Note that pathologically
confirmed T1 by EMR remains cT1, not pT1 (24).
Adenocarcinoma
For cT2N0M0 cancers, EMR and enhanced imaging
0 Tis N0 M0 are currently unreliable or unavailable. The use of G,
I T1 N0 M0 particularly the finding of cG3, which is associated with
IIA T1 N1 M0 reduced survival, may facilitate decision-making and
prognostication (6,21).
IIB T2 N0 M0

III T2 N1 M0 cN
T3–4a N0–1 M0 EUS, CT, and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission
IVA T1–4a N2 M0
tomography (FDG-PET) afford regional lymph node
imaging and are the principal non-invasive modalities for
T4b N0–2 M0
cN determination. Each examination indirectly assesses the
T1–4 N3 M0 potential of a lymph node harboring metastases and thus
IVB T1–4 N0–3 M1 has limitations specific to each technique.
EUS is used to evaluate size, shape, border, and internal
echocardiographic characteristics of regional lymph nodes.
Larger, more rounded, well demarcated hypoechoic lymph
of the esophageal wall and currently is the procedure of
nodes are most likely to contain metastasis. However,
choice for determining cT. The esophageal wall is viewed
reliance on EUS imaging assessment of cN is problematic.
as alternating hyperechoic (white) and hypoechoic (black)
In patients with a 60% prevalence of pN+, using EUS
layers on EUS. The muscularis propria, imaged as the
criteria of >5 mm, round borders, smooth shape, and
fourth layer (hypoechoic), is vital in differentiating T1, T2,
hypoechoic center for cN+, EUS was only 20% specific for
and T3 cancers. Hypoechoic cancers are cT1 if there is
N+, resulting in overstaging in 80% of pN0 cancers (25).
no invasion of the fourth layer, cT2 if invasion is into the An enlarged lymph node on CT suggests nodal
fourth layer, or cT3 if invasion is beyond the fourth layer. metastasis. The short axis of nodes is easily measured;
Additionally, EUS is used to evaluate the interface (between intrathoracic and abdominal lymph nodes >1 cm are
4th and 5th layers) between the primary cancer and adjacent considered enlarged (26). However, probability is
structures. If invasion of the fifth layer is detected, the small that cN can be determined by lymph node size
cancer is cT4. alone (27). Sources of false-negative examinations are
The performance index for distinguishing T1 or normal-sized nodes that contain metastatic deposits, and
T2 cancers from T3 or T4 cancers by EUS is 0.89 for metastatic nodes in direct contact with the cancer that
esophageal cancers and 0.91 for EGJ cancers (13). This may be indistinguishable from it. Similarly, false-positive
distinction is essential for decision-making: typically, examinations result from non-malignant nodal enlargement,

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, Vol 6, No 2 March 2017 123

as seen in inflammation. In a recent review, CT was 50% cM

sensitive (range, 41–60%) and 83% specific (range, 77– The value of EUS in screening for distant metastases
89%) in cN assessment (28). (cM1) is extremely limited. The distant organ must be
Metabolic evaluation of esophageal cancer by FDG- in direct contact with the upper gastrointestinal tract for
PET relies not only on metastatic deposit size but also it to be useful. EUS finding of ascites is suspicious for
on intensity of FDG uptake and decay. Theoretically, it intraperitoneal metastases.
is possible to identify microscopic metastases if glucose Chest and abdomen CT with intravenous and oral contrast
metabolism is sufficient to concentrate large quantities of can be used to detect distant metastasis (cM); however,
FDG. FDG-PET cannot differentiate adjacent N+ from the it has been reported to be only 37–66% sensitive (40).
primary cancer (29) and is least sensitive in assessing lymph FDG-PET imaging is more accurate. In a comparison
nodes in the mid- and lower-thoracic esophagus (30). In a report on detecting cM1, sensitivity of FDG-PET was
meta-analysis of 10 studies, FDG-PET N categorization 69%, specificity 93%, and overall accuracy 84% compared
was 57% sensitive (range, 43–70%) and 85% specific (range, with 46%, 74%, and 63%, respectively, for CT (41). FDG-
76–95%) (28). Because of its relatively good specificity, the PET/CT imaging further increases detection of distant
main role of PET is confirmation of cN0 (31). Adding CT metastases. However, this must be balanced with more
to FDG-PET increases accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and false-positive findings, resulting in unnecessary additional
negative predictive value (NPV) minimally (32); however, investigations. The clinical staging benefit of FDG-PET/
its biggest impact is in positive predictive value (PPV), with CT may be limited if comprehensive conventional staging is
an increase from 69% to 82%. performed, which includes chest, abdomen, and pelvis CT,
These imaging modalities have remarkably similar EUS, and ultrasonography of the neck (1).
performance in cN assessment: accuracy is reported to be Cytologic or histopathologic confirmation of cM1 is
66% for EUS, 63% for CT, and 68% for PET, sensitivities recommended by the AJCC (1). If there is pathologic
42%, 35%, and 35%, respectively, and specificities 91%, confirmation of distant metastatic cancer, categorization is
93%, and 87%, respectively (33). pM1, not cM1, in contrast to cT and cN (1,24).
Therefore, histologic confirmation of cN is critical for
accurate clinical staging. Endosonographic-directed fine Clinical staging strategies
needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is strongly recommended In 2017, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with
by the AJCC (1). In a multicenter study of 171 patients, biopsy, EMR, ESD, EUS, EUS-FNA, and FDG-PET/
EUS-FNA of 192 lymph nodes was performed (34). CT are mainstays in clinical staging of cancer of the
Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for determining cN esophagus and EGJ. No single test is sufficient, and thus
was 92%, 93%, 100%, and 86%, respectively. In a more these investigations are complementary. The order in
recent meta-analysis, EUS-FNA was 92% sensitive and which they are used is variable and depends on availability,
93% specific for cN, with a PPV of 100% and an NPV cost, scheduling, and patient and physician preference.
of 86% (28). Specificity may be lower in FNA samples There are two common strategies. The first is EGD with
obtained from lymph nodes located adjacent to the cancer, biopsy/EMR/ESD, EUS, and EUS-FNA to determine
because passage of the needle through the cancer may cause cell type, cG, cT, and cN, followed by FDG-PET/CT for
contamination (35). Inadequate specimens are obtained additional cN and cM staging. The endoscopic procedures
in 11% to 16% of EUS-FNA specimens, but cytologic can be performed at one sitting, ensuring that data for all
examination at the time of harvesting can improve staging categories are complete. This strategy is efficient,
quality (36). More invasive lymph node sampling, such but costly. The second strategy begins with CT or FDG-
as by thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, or mediastinoscopy and PET/CT evaluation for cM1 and no further testing if M1
biopsy, may be necessary to ensure optimal clinical staging. is confirmed. For cM0 cancers, clinical staging addresses
Categorization of cytologically or pathologically confirmed the other categories necessary to prescribe therapy. This
regional lymph node metastasis remains cN, not pN (24). sequential strategy is cost effective but inefficient and does
Subclassification of cN+ requires determining the not ensure that all clinical staging categories are determined
number of cancer-positive regional lymph nodes. It is (missing cTNM data). The modalities used for clinical
possible to determine this number accurately, and this staging must therefore be recorded in the patient’s medical
clinical assessment is predictive of survival (37-39). record (Box 1).

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
124 Rice et al. 8th edition esophageal and EGJ cancer staging

Box 1 Registry data collection variables This results from multiple factors, including failure to
use, or ineffectual use of, clinical staging modalities,
Clinical staging modalities (EGJ and biopsy, EUS, EUS-FNA, CT,
PET/CT)
understaging of “early” clinical cancers, overstaging
of “advanced” clinical cancers, and unpredictability of
Tumor length
effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment (downstaging) of
Depth of invasion advanced cancers. This results in “regression toward the
Number of nodes involved, clinical mean” of survival for cancers, with vastly different survival
Number of nodes involved, pathological
based on pTNM. Thus, prognostication using clinical stage
groups is coarse and may be inaccurate.
Location of nodal disease, clinical

Location of nodal disease, pathological

8th edition pathologic staging
Sites of metastasis, if applicable

Presence of skip lesions: T(m)

Cancer staging was initially proposed for “cases not
previously treated and that the extent of the disease must be
Perineural invasion
determined and recorded on clinical examination only” (42).
LVI (lymphatic, vascular, both) However, inaccuracies of clinical staging and pathologic
Extranodal extension assessment after esophagectomy led to the use of pathologic
stage after esophagectomy as the sole basis for all cancer
Type of surgery
staging. Data analysis in the 8th edition demonstrated that
Chemotherapy
simple sharing of stage groups among classifications was
Chemoradiation therapy (for ypTNM) not possible, due to marked survival differences and unique
Surgical margin (negative R0, microscopic+R1, pathologic stage groups after resection (esophagectomy or
macroscopic+R2) endoscopic resection) (Table 3) (5-7).
HER2 status (positive or negative) for adenocarcinoma Today, pathologic staging is losing its clinical relevance
for advanced-stage cancer as neoadjuvant therapy replaces
EGJ, esophagogastric junction; EUS, esophageal ultrasound;
EUS-FNA, endosonographic-directed fine needle aspiration; CT,
esophagectomy alone. However, it remains relevant for
computed tomography; PET, positron emission tomography; early-stage cancers, as the most accurate reflection of cancer
LVI, lymphovascular invasion. facts and as a survival reference point.

Applications of 8th edition pathologic staging (pTNM)

Clinical staging: decision-making to clinical practice
Clinical staging facilitates decision-making and has the
potential to provide precision cancer care. However, as Resection
described above, clinical stage may not reflect pathologic Before resection, the surgeon or endoscopist must confirm
stage. Therefore, every effort must be made to add the epicenter of the cancer (pL). Complete resection of the
complementary information to increase accuracy of primary cancer cannot be overstated. Adequate resection
clinical staging categories. Clinically staged cT1N0M0 requires obtaining satisfactory margins and preserving all
and cT2N0M0 cancers can be further studied and staging margins, particularly the radial margin. The definition
information augmented by adding cG and EMR results. of a positive radial margin depends on the pathologic
Patients with cN1 and cM1 cancers will benefit from reporting system used. The Royal College of Pathologists
histologic confirmation of advanced cancer. The future of defines an R1 (microscopically positive) margin as cancer
decision-making relies on new clinical staging modalities within 1 mm of the margin (43); the College of American
and cancer-specific therapy. Pathologists defines R1 as microscopic involvement of
the margin (44). A recent data-mining study reported that
Clinical staging: prognostication 10% of esophagectomy patients had positive resection
Survival according to cTNM stage groups is “pinched margins (45). Increasing cT was associated with a positive
together” compared with pathologic stage groups (2,3,5,6). margin. Survival is markedly diminished in incompletely

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, Vol 6, No 2 March 2017 125

Table 3 Pathologic (pTNM) stage groups resected patients, and although adjuvant radiation is
pStage group pT pN pM pGrade pLocation reported to improve survival, it has minimal clinical
Squamous cell carcinoma relevance.
To avoid false-positive resection margins, separation
0 Tis N0 M0 N/A Any
of periesophageal soft tissue in the area of the primary
IA T1a N0 M0 G1, X Any
cancer should be avoided. Any clinical or intraoperative
IB T1b N0 M0 G1, X Any
finding suggestive of a positive margin should prompt an
T1 N0 M0 G2–3 Any
intraoperative pathology consultation, with frozen section
T2 N0 M0 G1 Any study of the resection margin in question (46). If the margin
IIA T2 N0 M0 G2–3, X Any is positive, resection should be extended to obtain a negative
T3 N0 M0 Any Lower margin if possible.
T3 N0 M0 G1 Upper/middle Lymphadenectomy should be based on the new AJCC 8th
IIB T3 N0 M0 G2–3 Upper/middle edition regional lymph node map (1). Lymphadenectomy
T3 N0 M0 X Any sufficient to determine pN is different from that necessary
T3 N0 M0 Any X for optimal survival; at surgery, a balance of these goals is
T1 N1 M0 Any Any
necessary (14). More lymph nodes are required to identify
the uncommon early-stage cancer with regional lymph node
IIIA T1 N2 M0 Any Any
metastases. Increasing pN is associated with increasing pT,
T2 N1 M0 Any Any
increasing cancer length, increasing G, and more lymph
IIIB T4a N0–1 M0 Any Any
nodes resected. Optimal lymphadenectomy to classify
T3 N1 M0 Any Any
pN is 60 for smaller cancers (<2.5 cm) and 20 for larger
T2–3 N2 M0 Any Any ones. However, a different lymphadenectomy strategy is
IVA T4a N2 M0 Any Any required to provide a possible therapeutic (survival) benefit
T4b N0–2 M0 Any Any for advanced cancers (47). Optimum lymphadenectomy
T1–4 N3 M0 Any Any for maximal survival follows the simple rule of resecting 10
IVB T1–4 N0–3 M1 Any Any regional lymph nodes for pT1 cancers, 20 for pT2, and ≤30
Adenocarcinoma for pT3.
0 Tis N0 M0 N/A An accurate count of resected lymph nodes is important
IA T1a N0 M0 G1, X
to assess quality of resection and for prognostication. If
lymph nodes are fragmented at resection, the surgeon
IB T1a N0 M0 G2
must provide the number of regional lymph nodes in the
T1b N0 M0 G1–2, X
fragmented specimen.
IC T1 N0 M0 G3
T2 N0 M0 G1–2
Handling of resection specimen
IIA T2 N0 M0 G3, X Accurate pathologic staging requires careful examination
IIB T1 N1 M0 Any of the gross specimen for cancer size, shape, configuration,
T3 N0 M0 Any location, distance from margins (proximal, distal, and
IIIA T1 N2 M0 Any radial), and nodal dissection. Inking the adventitial aspect of
T2 N1 M0 Any the specimen facilitates microscopic assessment of pT and R.
IIIB T4a N0–1 M0 Any Lymph node dissection is a major component of
T3 N1 M0 Any pathologic staging. Optimal lymph node staging depends
T2–3 N2 M0 Any
on the amount of nodal tissue resected and the dissecting
skills of the pathology staff. The periesophageal soft tissue
IVA T4a N2 M0 Any
(adventitia) should be thoroughly dissected. Lymph node
T4b N0–2 M0 Any
retrieval should be performed only after full-thickness
T1–4 N3 M0 Any
sections of the cancer and deepest extent of invasion into
T1–4 N0–3 M1 Any the adventitia have been obtained. Lack of adherence to
N/A, not applicable; X, not defined. this practice leads to false-positive radial margins. In cases

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
126 Rice et al. 8th edition esophageal and EGJ cancer staging

where lymph node tissue is submitted as separate specimens, Table 4 Postneoadjuvant therapy (ypTNM) stage groups
the number of lymph nodes, including presence of matted
ypStage group ypT ypN ypM
lymph nodes, should be documented in the pathology
report. In specimens received in multiple fragments, I T0–2 N0 M0

accurate lymph node count is not possible if the surgeon II T3 N0 M0

has not documented the count, and this fact should be IIIA T0–2 N1 M0
recorded.
IIIB T4a N0 M0
The American College of Gastroenterology has endorsed
EMR as a modality both for diagnosis and treatment of T3 N1–2 M0
mucosal nodularity in patients with Barrett esophagus (48). T0–3 N2 M0
EMR specimens provide larger, intact specimens containing
IVA T4a N1–2, X M0
submucosal tissue for accurate pathologic assessment of
T4b N0–2 M0
pG, pT, and lymphovascular invasion in patients with
superficial esophageal adenocarcinoma. To facilitate T1–4 N3 M0
accurate staging, specimens should be oriented and fixed by IVB T1–4 N0–3 M1
pinning to a corkboard and serially sectioned after inking
X, not defined.
the lateral and deep margins of the specimen. Assessing
EMR specimens is challenging because specimen edges
often exhibit thermal artifacts and tend to curl. This
precludes accurate assessment of lateral mucosal margins. limited to pTis. Subgrouping maximized distinctiveness
Duplication of muscularis mucosae, often seen in Barrett- of survival between groups and subgroups. Homogeneity
related adenocarcinomas, can result in misinterpreting of survival within groups was excellent in all but the
invasion into the space between duplicated muscularis advanced groups, which would be remedied by additional
mucosae as submucosal invasion (49). Cancers should be higher pN subcategories, but is clinically irrelevant
categorized as pT1b only when neoplastic glands infiltrate because survival is poor in patients with more than
beyond the duplicated muscularis mucosal layer, involve the seven regional lymph node metastases (N3). Thus,
plane containing submucosal glands, or are located adjacent prognostication using pathologic stage groups is the most
to large-caliber arterial branches not normally found in the refined of all classifications. Personalized prognostication
mucosa. is afforded with additional cancer and patient variables in
ESD is emerging as an endoscopic technique for the prediction model.
en bloc resection of cancers. Tumors that are likely to
demonstrate submucosal invasion are larger than 15 mm 8th edition postneoadjuvant staging
or poorly “lifting” (22). Similar to EMR specimens, the
tissue orientation in ESD specimens facilitates the crucial New to the 8th edition is stage grouping of patients who
distinction between pT1a and pT1b cancer (23). have undergone neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic review
of the resection specimen. Drivers of this addition include
Pathologic staging: decision-making absence of equivalent pathologic (pTNM) categories for
Theoretically, pathologic staging could facilitate decision- the peculiar postneoadjuvant categories ypT0N0-3M0 and
making and has the potential to provide precision cancer ypTisN0-3M0, dissimilar stage group compositions, and
care in the post-esophagectomy period. However, use of markedly different survival profiles. Survival for ypTNM
this information to direct postoperative adjuvant therapy groups differs from that for comparable pTNM groups:
awaits more effective treatment. ypTNM survival is less distinctive between groups, and
survival curves are greatly depressed from above, with
Pathologic staging: prognostication much poorer survival of early ypTNM groups compared
Survival according to pTNM stage group was the best with corresponding pTNM groups and dismal survival
distributed of all classifications, with monotonically of advanced ypTNM groups, no better or worse than
decreasing survival with increasing subgroup and group, corresponding pTNM groups. The groupings are identical
except for stage group 0, which by AJCC definition was for both cell types (Table 4).

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, Vol 6, No 2 March 2017 127

Applications of 8th edition postneoadjuvant staging In patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, lymph nodes
(ypTNM) to clinical practice can atrophy and be difficult to recognize macroscopically.
In these cases, histologic assessment of most of the
Resection
periesophageal soft tissue is helpful to retrieve grossly
Just as for pTNM, adequate resection with preservation
impalpable lymph nodes. After treatment, lymph node
of margins and adequate lymphadenectomy are essential.
parenchyma shows fibrosis, lymphoid depletion, and
That lymphadenectomy has not been demonstrated to
acellular mucin lakes. Lymph nodes with these changes,
affect survival in patients undergoing resection after
and without any viable cancer cells, should be considered
preoperative therapy (4,50) should not influence extent of
negative for metastasis (ypN0). Immunohistochemical stains
lymphadenectomy.
such as cytokeratin AE1/AE3 may be used to confirm the
presence of rare residual cancer cells. However, because
Handling of resection specimen
false-positive results may occur, they should be interpreted
Gross appearance of a cancer may vary depending on
in conjunction with morphologic findings.
response to neoadjuvant therapy. With minimal response,
the cancer is readily visualized and is sampled similarly to Postneoadjuvant staging: decision-making
a non-treated cancer or cancer treated by esophagectomy The role of ypTNM in additional treatment planning is
alone. With a good response, the cancer may show only currently limited. However, for adenocarcinoma, addition
ulceration or mucosal irregularity. The cancer bed should of adjuvant chemotherapy provides a survival benefit in
be completely submitted for histologic evaluation. patients with residual nodal disease (ypN+) (56). To realize
Obliteration of anatomic landmarks poses diagnostic precision cancer care, advances are necessary in both
challenges in assigning ypT, especially for EGJ cancers (51). targeted neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies.
In some institutions, for EGJ cancers, the esophageal
adventitial surface and gastric serosa are inked with different Postneoadjuvant staging: prognostication
colors to determine the exact anatomic location and With the introduction of 8th edition ypTNM cancer
ypT (52). This practice will be obviated with genetic staging, prognostication is specific for patients undergoing
signature determination of cancer cell of origin. neoadjuvant therapy and is not shared with any other
Neoadjuvant therapy induces several histologic changes, classification.
including ulceration, mural fibrosis, acellular mucin
pools, and dystrophic calcification. Cancer cells must be
distinguished from reactive stromal cells and macrophages. Acknowledgements
Regardless of the cell type, residual cancer cells usually None.
demonstrate enlarged, irregular, and hyperchromatic nuclei
with a dense homogeneous nuclear chromatin pattern and
Footnote
abundant cytoplasm. Occasionally, residual cancer cells show
neuroendocrine phenotype or squamous features. These foci Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest
should be considered when determining ypT (53). to declare.
Neoadjuvant histopathologic changes may preclude
accurate grading of cancer, especially in cases with minimal
References
residual cancer. This underscores the importance of grading
cancers on preoperative biopsy. Acellular mucin pools 1. Rice TW, Kelsen DP, Blackstone EH, et al. Esophagus and
should not be used to determine pT or R (53). esophagogastric junction. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene
Cancer regression grading as described by Mandard FL, et al., editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed.
et al. is the most widely used system to assess response to New York: Springer, 2017:185-202.
therapy (54). The three-tiered cancer regression grading 2. Rice TW, Chen LQ, Hofstetter WL, et al. Worldwide
system outlined by Ryan et al. for assessing treated rectal Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data.
cancer has shown good interobserver reproducibility among Dis Esophagus 2016;29:724-33.
pathologists and is incorporated in the College of American 3. Rice TW, Apperson-Hansen C, DiPaola LM, et al.
Pathologists templates (55). Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: clinical

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
128 Rice et al. 8th edition esophageal and EGJ cancer staging

staging data. Dis Esophagus 2016;29:707-14. ultrasound predicts outcomes for patients with
4. Rice TW, Lerut TE, Orringer MB, et al. Worldwide adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction. J Am
Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: neoadjuvant pathologic Coll Surg 2007;205:593-601.
staging data. Dis Esophagus 2016;29:715-23. 16. Blackshaw G, Lewis WG, Hopper AN, et al. Prospective
5. Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Hofstetter WL, et al. comparison of endosonography, computed tomography,
Recommendations for pathologic staging (pTNM) of and histopathological stage of junctional oesophagogastric
cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction cancer. Clin Radiol 2008;63:1092-8.
for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals. Dis 17. Murata Y, Napoleon B, Odegaard S. High-frequency
Esophagus 2016;29:897-905. endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of
6. Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Blackstone EH, et al. superficial esophageal cancer. Endoscopy 2003;35:429-
Recommendations for clinical staging (cTNM) of cancer 35; discussion 436.
of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 18. Puli SR, Reddy JB, Bechtold ML, et al. Staging accuracy
8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals. Dis Esophagus of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: a meta-
2016;29:913-9. analysis and systematic review. World J Gastroenterol
7. Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Kelsen DP, et al. Recommendations 2008;14:1479-90.
for neoadjuvant pathologic staging (ypTNM) of cancer 19. Rice TW, Mason DP, Murthy SC, et al. T2N0M0
of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals. Dis Esophagus 2007;133:317-24.
2016;29:906-12. 20. Hardacker TJ, Ceppa D, Okereke I, et al. Treatment of
8. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol
molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. 2014;21:3739-43.
Nature 2014;513:202-9. 21. Thota PN, Sada A, Sanaka MR, et al. Correlation between
9. Hayakawa Y, Sethi N, Sepulveda AR, et al. Oesophageal endoscopic forceps biopsies and endoscopic mucosal
adenocarcinoma and gastric cancer: should we mind the resection with endoscopic ultrasound in patients with
gap? Nat Rev Cancer 2016;16:305-18. Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia and early
10. Montgomery E, Field JK, Boffetta P. Squamous cell cancer. Surg Endosc 2017;31:1336-41.
carcinoma of the oesophagus. In: Bosman FT, Carneiro 22. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T, et al.
F, Hruban RH, et al., editors. WHO Classification of Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of
Tumours of the Digestive System, 4th edition. Lyon: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy
International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2010:18-24. 2015;47:829-54.
11. Flejou JF, Odze RD, Montgomery E, et al. 23. Yang D, Coman RM, Kahaleh M, et al. Endoscopic
Adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. In: Bosman submucosal dissection for Barrett's early neoplasia: a
FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, et al., editors. WHO multicenter study in the United States. Gastrointest
Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System, 4th Endosc 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
edition. Lyon: International Agency for Research on 24. Gress DM, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. Principles of
Cancer, 2010:25-31. Cancer Staging. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al.,
12. Chirieac LR, Swisher SG, Correa AM, et al. Signet- editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed. New York:
ring cell or mucinous histology after preoperative Springer, 2017:3-30.
chemoradiation and survival in patients with esophageal 25. Kutup A, Link BC, Schurr PG, et al. Quality control
or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer of endoscopic ultrasound in preoperative staging of
Res 2005;11:2229-36. esophageal cancer. Endoscopy 2007;39:715-9.
13. Kelly S, Harris KM, Berry E, et al. A systematic review 26. van Overhagen H, Becker CD. Diagnosis and staging
of the staging performance of endoscopic ultrasound in of carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal
gastro-oesophageal carcinoma. Gut 2001;49:534-9. junction, and detection of postoperative recurrence, by
14. Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Hofstetter WL, et al. Esophageal computed tomography. In: Meyers M, editor. Neoplasms
Cancer: Associations With (pN+) Lymph Node Metastases. of the digestive tract. Imaging, staging and management.
Ann Surg 2017;265:122-9. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:31-48.
15. Barbour AP, Rizk NP, Gerdes H, et al. Endoscopic 27. Doi N, Aoyama N, Tokunaga M, et al. Possibility of pre-

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, Vol 6, No 2 March 2017 129

operative diagnosis of lymph node metastasis based on node metastasis count in esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus
morphology. Hepatogastroenterology 1999;46:977-80. 2010;23:652-9.
28. van Vliet EP, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG, et al. 40. Li Z, Rice TW. Diagnosis and staging of cancer of the
Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta- esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Surg Clin North
analysis. Br J Cancer 2008;98:547-57. Am 2012;92:1105-26.
29. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Staging 41. Luketich JD, Friedman DM, Weigel TL, et al. Evaluation
of esophageal cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose of distant metastases in esophageal cancer: 100 consecutive
positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol positron emission tomography scans. Ann Thorac Surg
1997;168:417-24. 1999;68:1133-6; discussion 1136-7.
30. Kato H, Kuwano H, Nakajima M, et al. Comparison 42. International Union Against Cancer (UICC). TNM
between positron emission tomography and computed Classification of Malignant Tumours. Geneva; 1968.
tomography in the use of the assessment of esophageal 43. The Royal College of Pathologists. Dataset for the
carcinoma. Cancer 2002;94:921-8. histopathological reporting of oesophageal carcinoma, 2nd
31. Flamen P, Lerut A, Van Cutsem E, et al. Utility of positron edition. London: The Royal College of Pathologists, 2007.
emission tomography for the staging of patients with 44. College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the
potentially operable esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma
2000;18:3202-10. of the oesophagus. Northfield: College of American
32. Roedl JB, Blake MA, Holalkere NS, et al. Lymph node Pathologists, 2009. Available online: goo.gl/lytw6I
staging in esophageal adenocarcinoma with PET-CT based 45. Javidfar J, Speicher PJ, Hartwig MG, et al. Impact of
on a visual analysis and based on metabolic parameters. Positive Margins on Survival in Patients Undergoing
Abdom Imaging 2009;34:610-7. Esophagogastrectomy for Esophageal Cancer. Ann Thorac
33. Choi J, Kim SG, Kim JS, et al. Comparison of endoscopic Surg 2016;101:1060-7.
ultrasonography (EUS), positron emission tomography 46. Liu X, Rice TW, Xiao SY, et al. Diagnostic problems
(PET), and computed tomography (CT) in the during esophageal and gastric surgery. In: Marchevsky
preoperative locoregional staging of resectable esophageal AM, Balzer BL, Abdul-Karim FW, editors. Intraoperative
cancer. Surg Endosc 2010;24:1380-6. consultation. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2015:154-68.
34. Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, et al. 47. Rizk NP, Ishwaran H, Rice TW, et al. Optimum
Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg
diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. 2010;251:46-50.
Gastroenterology 1997;112:1087-95. 48. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. ACG Clinical
35. Bergman JJ. The endoscopic diagnosis and staging Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's
of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:30-50; quiz 51.
Gastroenterol 2006;20:843-66. 49. Lewis JT, Wang KK, Abraham SC. Muscularis mucosae
36. Giovannini M, Seitz JF, Monges G, et al. Fine-needle duplication and the musculo-fibrous anomaly in
aspiration cytology guided by endoscopic ultrasonography: endoscopic mucosal resections for barrett esophagus:
results in 141 patients. Endoscopy 1995;27:171-7. implications for staging of adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg
37. Natsugoe S, Yoshinaka H, Shimada M, et al. Number Pathol 2008;32:566-71.
of lymph node metastases determined by presurgical 50. Koen Talsma A, Shapiro J, Looman CW, et al. Lymph
ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound is related to node retrieval during esophagectomy with and without
prognosis in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: prognostic and
2001;234:613-8. therapeutic impact on survival. Ann Surg 2014;260:786-
38. Chen J, Xu R, Hunt GC, et al. Influence of the 92; discussion 792-3.
number of malignant regional lymph nodes detected by 51. Chang F, Deere H, Mahadeva U, et al. Histopathologic
endoscopic ultrasonography on survival stratification in examination and reporting of esophageal carcinomas
esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol following preoperative neoadjuvant therapy: practical
2006;4:573-9. guidelines and current issues. Am J Clin Pathol
39. Twine CP, Roberts SA, Rawlinson CE, et al. Prognostic 2008;129:252-62.
significance of the endoscopic ultrasound defined lymph 52. Wu TT, Chirieac LR, Abraham SC, et al. Excellent

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130
130 Rice et al. 8th edition esophageal and EGJ cancer staging

interobserver agreement on grading the extent of chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma.

residual carcinoma after preoperative chemoradiation in Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer 1994;73:2680-6.
esophageal and esophagogastric junction carcinoma: a 55. Ryan R, Gibbons D, Hyland JM, et al. Pathological
reliable predictor for patient outcome. Am J Surg Pathol response following long-course neoadjuvant
2007;31:58-64. chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.
53. Hornick JL, Farraye FA, Odze RD. Prevalence and Histopathology 2005;47:141-6.
significance of prominent mucin pools in the esophagus post 56. Burt BM, Groth SS, Sada YH, et al. Utility of Adjuvant
neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for Barrett's-associated Chemotherapy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation and
adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:28-35. Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg 2016.
54. Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, et al. Pathologic [Epub ahead of print].
assessment of tumor regression after preoperative

Cite this article as: Rice TW, Patil DT, Blackstone EH.
8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus
and esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice.
Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130. doi: 10.21037/
acs.2017.03.14

© Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. www.annalscts.com Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6(2):119-130