Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 25, No 6 (February 20), 2007: pp. 737-738
© 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.4698

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aronson, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Aronson, D. C.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Correspondence
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

CORRESPONDENCE

In Reply

Daniël C. Aronson

Emma Children’s Hospital AMC, Pediatric Surgical Center of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Meyers et al criticize the methodology with which the value of the Pretreatment Extent of Disease (PRETEXT) system has been evaluated, and question the validity of the comparison between PRETEXT and the Children's Cancer Study Group/Pediatric Oncology Group (CCSG/POG) staging. Because we compared PRETEXT with a gold standard (which is essential for a good epidemiologic study),1 the study had to be limited to the comparison of the preoperative PRETEXT with the (postoperative) resection specimen. This indeed had the consequence that only patients who had been operated could be included in this comparison. Now that this analysis has shown that PRETEXT staging is accurate and reliable we can move forward, and enthusiastically agree with a widespread start of the use of the PRETEXT system, and to evaluate this system as a risk stratification tool, in order to be able "to let the numbers speak."

We do agree with Meyers et al that the retrospective application of the CCSG/POG staging system to our SIOPEL-1 data set is not a valid application of this staging system as such, which has been clearly stated on page 1247: "We are aware that ... the CCSG/POG staging system and TNM staging system are postoperative staging systems that are validated on the surgical results before any other therapeutic intervention, and that now are being applied to patients who have been pretreated with chemotherapy."1 For the sake of clarity, from then on we therefore spoke about the CCSG/POG-based staging system and TNM-based staging system, respectively, in order to make this difference with the original staging systems transparent. In the Discussion, the lesser predictive value of the CCSG/POG-based system we found, was explained by the "select group of patients."1 We are therefore grateful with their comments that the true CCSG/POG staging system has been designed and validated as a postoperative staging system, and should not be applied otherwise in patient care.

We would like to stress that the aim of this article was to analyze and validate the properties of the PRETEXT staging system, and to show its accuracy, reproducibility, and predictive value. Based on these properties we advocate the use of PRETEXT for all groups treating hepatoblastoma patients (be it as an extra staging next to the use of their own preferred staging system) as a tool to make the comparison of treatment results more accurate.

AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The author indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Aronson DC, Schnater JM, Staalman CR, et al: Predictive value of the pretreatment extent of disease system in hepatoblastoma: Results from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Liver Tumor study group SIOPEL-1 study. J Clin Oncol 23:1245-1252, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?

Related Correspondence

  • Predictive Value of Staging Systems in Hepatoblastoma
    Rebecka L. Meyers, Howard M. Katzenstein, and Marcio H. Malogolowkin
    JCO 2007 25: 737 [Full Text]



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aronson, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Aronson, D. C.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Correspondence
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online