==== Front Cancer Manag ResCancer Manag ResCancer Management and ResearchCancer Management and Research1179-1322Dove Medical Press 10.2147/CMAR.S165188cmar-10-2303Original ResearchP–TNM staging system for colon cancer: combination of P-stage and AJCC TNM staging system for improving prognostic prediction and clinical management Liu Qi 12Luo Dakui 12Cai Sanjun 12Li Qingguo 12Li Xinxiang 12 1 Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, oncosurgeonli@sohu.com 2 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, oncosurgeonli@sohu.comCorrespondence: Xinxiang Li; Qingguo Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, #270 Dongan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200032, People’s Republic of China, Email 1149lxx@sina.com; oncosurgeonli@sohu.com2018 31 7 2018 10 2303 2314 © 2018 Liu et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited2018The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.Aim This study focused on improving the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system and demonstrated an improvement in prognostic accuracy and clinical management of colon cancer using the P–TNM staging system. Patients and methods Eligible patients (N=56,800) were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. The P-stage (P0 or P1) was assigned to each patient based on age at diagnosis, tumor grade, and tumor size. The outcome of interest was cancer-specific survival (CSS). The Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to identify independent prognostic factors and analyze the CSS probabilities of patients with colon cancer having different P–TNM stages, respectively. Results A total of 29,627 patients were assigned to P0-stage and 27,173 patients were assigned to P1-stage. The P1-stage was associated with a 98.1% increased risk of cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio =1.981, 95% confidence interval =1.891–2.076, P<0.001), which was higher in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. The P1-stage patients had improvement in CSS compared with those in P0-stage in respective stages (P<0.001). Moreover, CSS decreased in stage I–P1 compared with stage IIA–P0 or IIIA–P0 (P<0.001), stage IIIA–P1 compared with stage IIA–P0 (P<0.001), stage IIB–P1 compared with stage IIIB–P0 or IIC–P0 (P<0.001), stage IIIB–P1 compared with stage IIC–P0 (P<0.001), and stage IIC–P1 compared with stage IIIC–P0 (P<0.001). Conclusion P-stage was an independent prognostic factor for colon cancer. This study strongly supported the incorporation of P-stage into the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for a better approach to prognostication and, thus, more individualized risk-adaptive therapies in colon cancer. Keywords prognostic scorecolon cancerAJCC TNM staging system ==== Body Introduction Colon cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers among both men and women in the United States.1 Presently, colon cancer is staged according to a system designed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) that defines the prognosis in a clear manner and is thus used for clinical treatment decisions. The AJCC staging system differentiated patients on the basis of the invasion extent of primary tumor (T-stage), lymph node status (N-stage), and distant spread (M-stage). However, the TNM staging system is not perfect for the prognostic prediction and clinical management of colon cancer. The AJCC issued a request for proposals to develop staging methods based on other available information beyond the classical TNM staging.2 The present study focused on improving the AJCC TNM staging system. In 1990, Kune et al3 suggested that older patients with colon cancer might have worse survival compared with younger patients. In 1984, Phillips et al4 reported that the tumor grade was an independent prognostic factor in large bowel cancer. Also, Kornprat et al5 analyzed 359 patients with colon cancer and reported that the tumor size was significantly associated with progression-free and cancer-specific survival (CSS) and negatively impacted survival. Moreover, many subsequent studies revealed that age at diagnosis,6–9 tumor grade,10,11 and tumor size12,13 had a strong correlation with the prognosis of colon cancer. Yet most of them focus on the prognostic significance of one single factor and no study attempt to combine the three factors together for improved prognostic prediction. Therefore, this study proposed a novel prognostic score based on 3 patient and tumor characteristics, consequently obtaining the P-stage from the prognostic score. The present study analyzed the combined value of P-stage and the TNM staging system in predicting the prognosis and clinical management. Patients and methods Study design and data source The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database is an authoritative source of information on cancer incidence and survival in the United States. This database provides a comprehensive source of population-based information including all newly diagnosed cancer cases among people residing in areas participating in the SEER program and covering approximately 28% of the US population. As shown in Figure 1, data were obtained for 185,617 patients with a diagnosis of malignant colorectal cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, from the SEER program of the National Cancer Institute. Among these patients, 68,945 patients who satisfied the following inclusion criteria were identified: colon cancer, age, grade, tumor size, the seventh edition of TNM staging available, and 1 malignant primary tumor only. Patients with T0- or Tis-stage were excluded for an accurate staging. Patients with nonadenocarcinoma histology or unknown surgery status were also excluded. Finally, the target population included 56,800 colon cancer patients with diagnosis based on the seventh edition of TNM stage and 3 specific prognostic factors (age at diagnosis, tumor grade, and tumor size) available. P-stage: risk-stratification Patients were stratified based on a prognostic score incorporating 3 patient and tumor characteristics (age at diagnosis, tumor grade, and tumor size) that have been reported to influence the survival of colon cancer patients.3–8,10–13 As can be seen in Figure 2, we calculated the total score with 0, 1, 2, and 3 points each given for age (≤49, >49–64, >64–79, >79 years), grade (well differentiated or grade I; moderately differentiated or grade II; poorly differentiated or grade III; undifferentiated, anaplastic or grade IV), and tumor size (≤2, >2–4, <4–6, >6 cm). The total scores ranged from 0 to 9, then a comprehensive prognostic score based on the 3 prognostic factors was obtained, with a score of 0 having the best prognosis and those with a score of 9 having the worst prognosis. These cut points were based on the prior cohort studies concerning the prognostic factors of age at diagnosis,7 tumor grade,11 and tumor size.13 Finally, we got the P-stage of each patient according to the prognostic score – score 0–4 was assigned to P0-stage and score 5–9 was assigned to P1-stage. Statistical analyses Several Cox proportional hazards models were built to identify independent prognostic variables at a median survival time of 20 months (ranged 0–59 months). All the hazard ratios (HRs) are shown with 95% confidence interval (CI). The endpoint used for comparison in the present study was 59-month CSS based on selected patients with colon cancer because the longest follow-up time was 59 months, not >5 years. Variables that showed prognostic significance (log-rank, P<0.20) in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis of the selected patients. Moreover, the variables, including P-stage, TNM stage, tumor location, surgery status, histology, race, and year of diagnosis, were included in the multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards models. The TNM staging used in this study was the seventh edition of the AJCC cancer staging system, the newest TNM stage that could be obtained from the SEER database. This study also designed a variable called the “N–P stage,” combining the N-stage (N0-, N1-, N2a-, and N2b-stage) and the P-stage (P0 and P1, based on the prognostic score), to compare the interaction between these 2 stages in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to evaluate the prognostic prediction of different factors and the log-rank tests to assess the statistical significance. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. A statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Ethics statement The study was approved by the Ethical Committee and Institutional Review Board of the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. The data did not include the use of human subjects or personal identifying information, and so no informed consent was required for this study. Results P-stage was strongly associated with the survival of colon cancer The median follow-up time for the overall cohort was 20 months. At the end of the follow-up time, 8,841 (15.6%) patients died of colon cancer. Table S1 demonstrates that higher grade, larger tumor size, and older age are associated with poorer survival, which was consistent with a prior study.14 A multivariable analysis was conducted to identify the variables independently associated with CSS in the overall cohort, and it was found that the P1-stage was independently associated with 59-month CSS of 56,800 patients with colon cancer and had a 98.1% increased risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR =1.981, 95% CI =1.891–2.076, P<0.001; Table 1). Moreover, other factors identified as independent protective factors included lower TNM stage, sigmoid colon, surgery status, adenocarcinoma histology, and later age of diagnosis. A multivariable Cox analysis was also conducted in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer (n=50,259) selected from the overall cohort. It once again confirmed that the P1-stage was independently associated with an increased risk of CSS (HR =2.315, 95% CI =2.172–2.467, P<0.001; Table S2) and showed a 131.5% increased risk of cancer-specific mortality in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer (higher than that in the overall cohort), indicating that the prognostic prediction efficacy of P-stage improved in patients with AJCC stage I–III colon cancer. Prognostic prediction of P–TNM stage: combination of P-stage and AJCC TNM staging system The survival curves of all P–TNM stage (AJCC TNM staging system combined with P-stage) were used to analyze the prognostic prediction of the P–TNM stage in the overall cohort (n=56,800; Figure 3A–C). As expected, all P0-stage patients showed a statistically significant increase in the 59-month CSS compared with the P1-stage patients (P<0.001) in the respective AJCC TNM stages. Moreover, as Figure 3A–C also shows, an increased or similar 59-month CSS of stage P0–TNM patients compared with stage P1–TNM patients with higher AJCC stages was observed. A decreased CSS was also found in stage I–P1 patients compared with stage IIIA–P0 or IIA–P0 patients (P<0.001), stage IIIA–P1 patients compared with stage IIA–P0 patients (P<0.001), stage IIB–P1 patients compared with stage IIIB–P0 or IIC–P0 patients (P<0.001), stage IIIB–P1 patients compared with stage IIC–P0 patients (P<0.001), and stage IIC–P1 patients compared with stage IIIC–P0 patients (P<0.001). Thus, a considerable overlap existed between the Kaplan–Meier survival curves of adjacent AJCC TNM stages. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves of stages I–P0, I–P1, II–P0, II–P1, III–P0, and III–P1 also showed that the P0-stage patients had a statistically significant increase in the 59-month CSS compared with the P1-stage patients (P<0.001) in the respective AJCC TNM stages (Figure 3D). It was thus easily found that stage III–P0 had no significant difference from stage IIIA–P1 (Figure S1). Figure 4 shows that Kaplan–Meier survival curves of different TNM stages. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare the HRs of each AJCC TNM stage and P–TNM stages. The 59-month CSS was also assigned to each P–TNM stage and TNM stage. Consistent with the Kaplan–Meier survival curves, stage P0–TNM patients showed increased 59-month CSS rates and decreased HRs compared with the respective P1–TNM stages (Table 2). Also, HRs of several stage P1–TNM patients exceeded those with stage P0–TNM, and even those with higher conventional AJCC TNM stages. The cancer-specific mortality was higher in stage I–P1 patients (HR =3.390, 95% CI =2.775–4.141) compared with stage IIA–P0 (HR =2.048, 95% CI =1.706–2.457) or IIIA–P0 patients (HR =1.445, 95% CI =1.031–2.023), stage IIIA–P1 patients (HR =5.721, 95% CI =4.192–7.808) compared with stage IIA–C0 or IIIB–P0 patients (HR =4.836, 95% CI =4.106–5.696), stage IIB–P1 patients (HR =11.180, 95% CI =9.159–13.646) compared with stage IIIB–P0 or IIC–P0 patients (HR =6.149, 95% CI =4.229–8.940), stage IIIB–P1 patients (HR =10.571, 95% CI =9.077–12.311) compared with stage IIC–P0 patients, and stage IIC–P1 patients (HR =15.022, 95% CI =12.395–18.207) compared with stage IIIC–P0 (HR =11.304, 95% CI =9.434–13.543) patients. This stage migration indicated that the P–TNM stage had a more accurate prognostic prediction than the TNM stage after the combination with P-stage. Alternatively, the P1-stage had an upstage effect that P1 patients presented higher risk of cancer-specific mortality than those P0 patients with higher TNM stages in most patients with colon cancer. The prognostic prediction efficacy was even stronger in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. Prognosis of N-stage combined with P-stage Multivariate Cox regression analyses were also conducted in patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer to compare the HRs of each N-stage (N0, N1, N2a, and N2b) before and after the combination of P-stage, and the 59-month CSS was also assigned to each P–N stage and N-stage (Table 3). The stage N–P0 patients showed increased 59-month CSS rates and lower HRs compared with the respective stage N–P1 patients. Table 3 also shows that the number of stage N–P1 patients exceeded the number of N–P0 stage patients with the higher N stages. The cancer-specific mortality was higher in the N0–P1 stage patients (HR =2.523, 95% CI =2.241–2.817) compared with N1–P0 patients (HR =1.964, 95% CI =1.705–2.263), stage N1–P1 patients (HR =4.541, 95% CI =4.009–5.143) compared with stage N2a–P0 patients (HR =2.870, 95% CI =2.356–3.496), and stage N2a–P1 patients (HR =6.607, 95% CI =5.650–7.726) compared with stage N2b–P0 patients (HR =5.006, 95% CI =4.101–6.111). The aforementioned results indicated that P1 patients had a significantly worse prognosis than those with N1-, N2a-, and even N2b-stage. Discussion The AJCC TNM staging system is the most commonly used algorithm in the clinical practice of colon cancer. However, the TNM stage considers only the invasion extent of primary tumor (T-stage), lymph node status (N-stage), and distant spread (M-stage) without considering other factors that influence the prognosis of colon cancer.15 This was not perfect for prognostic prediction, although several modifications in the past years had improved its predictive ability. AJCC had issued a request for staging methods based on other available information beyond the conventional TNM staging system.2 Therefore, a more comprehensive staging that included other demographic and clinicopathologic variables known to impact the survival was urgently needed. Previous studies showed that age at diagnosis,3,6–9 tumor grade,4,10,11 and tumor size5,12,13 had a strong correlation with the prognosis of colon cancer. For example, Saha et al13 found that the 5-year overall survival was 66%, 52%, 46%, and 41% in the subgroups with tumor sizes of 0–2, >2–4, >4–6, and >6 cm, respectively. In 2012, Patel et al7 reported that the oldest age group (>80 years old) had a 238% increased overall mortality compared with the youngest age group (18–49 years). In 2011, Weiser et al2 developed prognostic models (incorporating T-stage, N-stage, numbers of positive lymph nodes, numbers of total lymph nodes, age, gender, and tumor grade) that outperformed the current AJCC TNM staging system. Considering that HRs of male and female patients with colon cancer were not significantly different (Table 1) and the numbers of positive lymph nodes and total lymph nodes had some overlap with the N-stage, these were not included in the P–TNM stage in this study. In the present large, representative, population-based study, the AJCC TNM staging system was extended to include patient- and tumor-related variables of age of diagnosis, tumor grade, and tumor size, which are routinely available from the SEER database, and the 59-month CSS of each P–TNM stage, and thus a combination of the newly proposed P-stage and TNM stage was analyzed. The present study confirmed that all P1-stage patients had a statistically significant increase in mortality compared with the P0-stage patients with the same TNM stage. Also, the 98.1% increased HR in the overall cohort and 131.5% increased HR in the patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer also proved that the P1-stage greatly increased the 59-month cancer-specific mortality. The study also showed that several P1–TNM stages even exceeded the P0–TNM stages with higher AJCC TNM stages. The better prognosis of patients with several node-positive stages (stage IIIA–P0, IIIA–P1, or IIIB–P0) than that of several node-negative stages (stage IIC–P0, IIB–P0, IIA–P1, or IIA–P0) seemed to explain that a part of node-negative patients had a bad prognosis and that not all patients with node-positive status had a poor prognosis.16,17 Besides, this study showed that the P1-stage patients had a worse prognosis than the N1-, N2a-, and even N2b-stage patients, indicating that the P1-stage might be a more powerful predictor of worse prognosis compared with the node-positive status. Given the benefits of chemotherapy in node-positive patients,18,19 the P1-stage in this study was of great significance in indicating the use of chemotherapy. Also, in the analyses of P–TNM stage, it could be seen that the stage I (T1–T2N0M0)–P1 had a worse prognosis than stage IIIA (T1–T2N1M0)–P0. Considering almost the same in the T-stage (T1–T2), the P1-stage was once again proved to be stronger than the N1-stage for indicating a poor prognosis. However, in the clinical treatment today, stage IIIA patients are treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, while stage I patients are not.20 Therefore, this study took into account the possibility of under treatment in the TNM stage I colon cancer and over-treatment in the TNM stage IIIA colon cancer. Fortunately, the P-stage could distinguish well between stages I–P0 and I–P1 in the TNM stage I, and extremely well between stages IIIA–P0 and IIIA–P1 in the TNM stage IIIA (which also seemed to account for the better prognosis of TNM stage IIIA than stage IIIA).2,21 Moreover, toxicity and adverse events caused by adjuvant chemotherapy could result in significant patient morbidity.22 The present study suggested that the recommendation of reduced chemotherapy in stage IIIA–P0 deserves further investigation and prospective studies with the incorporation of the newly proposed P-stage. Therefore, this study strongly supported adding the P-stage into the conventional TNM staging system to generate a more refined, risk-adapted stage and thus guide the clinical treatment of colon cancer. The adjuvant chemotherapy of TNM stage II has long been studied. At present, it has been widely accepted that patients with TNM stage II with any of high-risk factors, such as T4-stage, obstruction, perforation, poorly differentiated histology, <12 lymph nodes, presence of lymphovascular or perineural invasion, or positive margins,11,23–26 might be considered as candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy. In 2004, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, especially for patients with high-risk TNM stage II colon cancer, despite adequate indirect evidence of benefit.18 The guidelines published by the European Society for Medical Oncology also recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for the high-risk stage II colon cancer despite insufficient scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in this group of patients.27 However, in 2011, O’Connor et al24 reported that patients with stage II colon cancer with any high-risk factors (including obstruction, perforation, emergent admission, T4-stage, resection of fewer than 12 lymph nodes, and poor histology) did not get substantial survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. In 2016, Verhoeff et al28 showed similar results after analyzing 4,940 patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer (pT4, poor/undifferentiated grade, emergency surgery, and/or <10 evaluated lymph nodes). Given that high risks did not include the tumor size and age at diagnosis, this study considered that the P-stage might improve this situation. Moreover, 1 distinct advantage of the simple and convenient P-stage was that the 3 prognostic factors (including age at diagnosis, tumor grade, and tumor size) were readily available and could even be specified preoperatively (tumor size known by colonoscopy, and then the colonoscopy biopsy to specify the tumor grade). After combining with the preoperative TNM stage, the P–TNM stage could be obtained, which is a more refined stage for better predicting the prognosis and guiding preoperative treatment for patients with colon cancer. This study still had several limitations. First, the P–TNM stage did not take into account other prognostic factors, including the microsatellite instability status, treatment, carcinoembryonic antigen level, and so on. This could independently affect the survival,19,29,30 indicating that the P–TNM stage is not perfect and needs further improvement. Anatomical staging might be less important compared with the treatment factors (patients who received adjuvant therapy and the specific regimens of the therapy). Whether the stage IIIA–P0 had a good prognosis on account of biological characteristics (discriminated by P-stage) or treatment effect (adjuvant therapy) still remains unknown. However, the P1-stage might have a worse prognosis compared with the N2a- and N2b-stage in node-positive patients, and this study still recommended less chemotherapy in the stage IIIA–P0 patients. Second, the overall cohort incorporated 56,800 patients from the SEER database; hence, the sample size still needs to be enlarged. The longest follow-up time was only 59 months, not exceeding 5 years. Besides, the analyses were merely based on retrospective data. Therefore, prospective clinical studies concerning P-stage need to be carried out for more sensitive prognosis prediction compared with N-stage and prognosis discrimination of each TNM stage. Conclusion The newly proposed P-stage, which is easily available even before performing operation on patients, explains the lack of clear ranking by stage in predicting outcomes using the conventional TNM stage. The present study strongly supported the incorporation of P-stage into the AJCC TNM stage (ie, the P–TNM stage) for a better approach to prognostication and, thus, more individualized risk-adaptive therapies. Supplementary materials Figure S1 Kaplan–Meier survival curves of II–P0 stage, II–P1 stage, III–P0 stage, IIIA–P1 stage, IIIB–P1 stage, and IIIC–P1 stage. Abbreviation: CSS, cancer-specific survival. Table S1 Multivariable Cox regression analyses of all independent prognostic factors (including tumor size, tumor grade, and age of diagnosis) Covariate Variable Univariable analyses Multivariable analyses HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value Tumor grade <0.001 <0.001 Grade I Reference Reference Grade II 1.589 (1.437–1.758) <0.001 1.059 (0.957–1.172) 0.270 Grade III 3.416 (3.076–3.794) <0.001 1.427 (1.282–1.588) <0.001 Grade IV 4.073 (3.577–4.637) <0.001 1.617 (1.417–1.845) <0.001 Tumor size (cm) <0.001 <0.001 ≤2 Reference Reference >2–4 3.067 (2.749–3.422) <0.001 1.228 (1.094–1.378) 0.001 <4–6 4.367 (3.919–4.866) <0.001 1.312 (1.200–1.424) <0.001 >6 5.650 (5.068–6.300) <0.001 1.453 (1.291–1.634) <0.001 Age at diagnosis (years) <0.001 <0.001 ≤49 Reference Reference >49–64 1.041 (0.956–1.134) 0.350 1.307 (1.200–1.424) <0.001 >64–79 1.262 (1.163–1.371) <0.001 1.875 (1.725–2.037) <0.001 >79 2.342 (2.157–2.544) <0.001 3.911 (3.592–4.258) <0.001 TNM-stage <0.001 <0.001 I Reference Reference IIA 2.318 (2.064–2.603) <0.001 1.860 (1.646–2.101) <0.001 IIB 6.099 (5.219–7.129) <0.001 4.775 (4.065–5.611) <0.001 IIC 8.359 (7.140–9.788) <0.001 6.529 (5.536–7.702) <0.001 IIIA 1.539 (1.224–1.934) <0.001 1.647 (1.310–2.070) <0.001 IIIB 4.902 (4.388–5.476) <0.001 4.333 (3.854–4.872) <0.001 IIIC 12.873 (11.490–14.422) <0.001 10.942 (9.682–12.366) <0.001 IVA 25.298 (22.685–28.213) <0.001 23.230 (20.665–26.114) <0.001 IVB 36.497 (32.647–40.801) <0.001 32.078 (28.432–26.193) <0.001 Tumor location <0.001 <0.001 Cecum Reference Reference Ascending colon 0.827 (0.779–0.877) 1.024 (0.964–1.087) 0.444 Hepatic flexure 0.876 (0.791–0.970) 0.011 1.056 (0.953–1.170) 0.296 Transverse colon 0.899 (0.834–0.970) 0.006 1.082 (1.003–1.167) 0.041 Splenic flexure 0.990 (0.886–1.106) 0.855 1.100 (0.984–1.230) 0.093 Descending colon 0.784 (0.714–0.860) 1.005 (0.915–1.104) 0.922 Sigmoid colon 0.698 (0.659–0.739) 0.903 (0.851–0.958) 0.001 Surgery <0.001 <0.001 No surgery Reference Reference Surgery performed 0.138 (0.124–0.153) 0.359 (0.322–0.402) <0.001 Histology <0.001 0.001 Adenocarcinoma Reference Reference Mucinous adenocarcinoma 1.265 (1.178–1.358) <0.001 1.026 (0.954–1.103) 0.495 Signet ring cell carcinoma 2.957 (2.568–3.405) <0.001 1.316 (1.139–1.521) <0.001 Race <0.001 <0.001 Black Reference Reference White 0.865 (0.814–0.918) <0.001 0.827 (0.778–0.879) <0.001 Other 0.722 (0.658–0.792) <0.001 0.697 (0.635–0.766) <0.001 Unknown 0.227 (0.132–0.393) <0.001 0.349 (0.202–0.603) <0.001 Gender 0.164 0.031 Male Reference Reference Female 1.030 (0.988–1.074) 0.954 (0.914–0.996) 0.031 Year of diagnosis <0.001 0.001 2010 Reference Reference 2011 0.963 (0.911–1.019) 0.195 0.945 (0.893–0.999) 0.047 2012 0.938 (0.883–0.996) 0.038 0.942 (0.886–1.001) 0.053 2013 0.926 (0.863–0.993) 0.031 0.931 (0.868–0.999) 0.047 2014 0.787 (0.715–0.866) <0.001 0.809 (0.735–0.891) <0.001 Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio. Table S2 Multivariable Cox regression analyses of all independent prognostic factors in nonmetastatic colon cancer patients Covariate Reference Variable CSS HR (95% CI) SE P-value P-stage P0 P1 2.315 (2.172–2.467) 0.032 <0.001 TNM-stage I IIA 1.854 (1.646–2.089) 0.061 <0.001 IIB 4.702 (4.012–5.511) 0.081 <0.001 IIC 5.195 (4.422–6.103) 0.082 <0.001 IIIA 1.710 (1.360–2.151) 0.117 <0.001 IIIB 4.224 (3.769–4.733) 0.058 <0.001 IIIC 9.974 (8.864–11.222) 0.060 <0.001 Tumor location Cecum Ascending colon 1.045 (0.967–1.129) 0.040 0.264 Hepatic flexure 1.092 (0.961–1.241) 0.065 0.178 Transverse colon 1.069 (0.968–1.181) 0.051 0.186 Splenic flexure 1.148 (0.994–1.327) 0.074 0.061 Descending colon 1.001 (0.884–1.133) 0.063 0.992 Sigmoid colon 0.867 (0.801–0.938) 0.041 <0.001 Surgery No surgery Surgery performed 0.080 (0.067–0.097) 0.094 <0.001 Histology Adenocarcinoma Mucinous adenocarcinoma 1.013 (0.923–1.111) 0.047 0.788 Signet ring cell carcinoma 1.411 (1.174–1.697) 0.094 <0.001 Race Black White 0.892 (0.822–0.969) 0.042 0.007 Other 0.712 (0.627–0.807) 0.064 <0.001 Unknown 0.259 (0.123–0.547) 0.380 <0.001 Gender Male Female 1.040 (0.985–1.099) 0.028 0.159 Year of diagnosis 2010 2011 0.929 (0.863–1.001) 0.038 0.054 2012 0.931 (0.859–1.009) 0.041 0.083 2013 0.912 (0.831–1.001) 0.047 0.054 2014 0.786 (0.693–0.890) 0.064 <0.001 Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CSS, cancer-specific survival; HR, hazard ratio; SE, standard error. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 81702353 and 81772599) and Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation (17ZR1406400). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We have great respect for the work that goes into compiling and maintaining the SEER tumor registries, including the interpretation and reporting of these data and so on. Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work. Figure 1 Flow diagram of patient population selected from the SEER database. Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. Figure 2 Patient prognostic score in patients with colon cancer: risk stratifications. Figure 3 Kaplan–Meier survival curves of patients based on the P–TNM staging system. Notes: (A) CSS of I–P0 stage, I–P1 stage, IIA–P0 stage, IIA–P1 stage, IIIA–P0 stage, and IIIA–P1 stage. (B) CSS of IIB–P0 stage, IIB–P1 stage, IIC–P0 stage, IIC–P1 stage, IIIB–P0 stage, and IIIB–P1 stage. (C) CSS of IIC–P0 stage, IIC–P1 stage, IIIC–P0 stage, IIIC–P1 stage, IV–P0 stage, and IV–P1 stage. (D) CSS of I–P0 stage, I–P1 stage, II–P0 stage, II–P1 stage, III–P0 stage, and III–P1 stage. Abbreviation: CSS, cancer-specific survival. Figure 4 Kaplan–Meier survival curves of TNM staging system (including stage IIA, stage IIB, stage IIC, stage IIIA, stage IIIB, and stage IIIC). Abbreviation: CSS, cancer-specific survival. Table 1 Multivariable Cox regression analyses of all independent prognostic factors Covariate Reference Variable CSS HR (95% CI) SE P-value P-stage P0 P1 1.981 (1.891–2.076) 0.024 <0.001 TNM-stage I IIA 1.812 (1.611–2.037) 0.060 <0.001 IIB 4.667 (3.989–5.461) 0.080 <0.001 IIC 5.871 (5.005–6.888) 0.081 <0.001 IIIA 1.579 (1.257–1.985) 0.117 <0.001 IIIB 4.102 (3.669–4.586) 0.057 <0.001 IIIC 9.946 (8.862–11.162) 0.059 <0.001 IVA 20.291 (18.169–22.661) 0.056 <0.001 IVB 27.039 (24.138–30.288) 0.058 <0.001 Tumor location Cecum Ascending colon 1.043 (0.982–1.107) 0.031 0.172 Hepatic flexure 1.069 (0.965–1.184) 0.052 0.201 Transverse colon 1.072 (0.994–1.157) 0.039 0.071 Splenic flexure 1.024 (0.917–1.145) 0.057 0.672 Descending colon 0.911 (0.830–1.000) 0.048 0.051 Sigmoid colon 0.815 (0.769–0.865) 0.030 <0.001 Surgery No surgery Surgery performed 0.346 (0.309–0.386) 0.057 <0.001 Histology Adenocarcinoma Mucinous adenocarcinoma 1.003 (0.933–1.078) 0.037 0.942 Signet ring cell carcinoma 1.441 (1.249–1.662) 0.073 <0.001 Race Black White 0.947 (0.892–1.006) 0.031 0.077 Other 0.770 (0.701–0.845) 0.048 <0.001 Unknown 0.356 (0.206–0.615) 0.279 <0.001 Gender Male Female 1.050 (1.007–1.095) 0.021 0.022 Year of diagnosis 2010 2011 0.946 (0.894–1.001) 0.029 0.053 2012 0.937 (0.882–0.996) 0.031 0.036 2013 0.925 (0.862–0.992) 0.036 0.029 2014 0.782 (0.711–0.861) 0.049 <0.001 Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CSS, cancer-specific survival; HR, hazard ratio; SE, standard error. Table 2 Prognosis of P-stage and P–TNM stage in colon cancer Stage 59-month CSS rate (%) Number of patients CSS HR (95% CI) SE P-value AJCC TNM staging system I 95.3 12,753 1.00 (Reference) – – IIA 88.2 16,182 1.811 (1.610–2.036) 0.060 <0.001 IIB 64.6 1,637 4.658 (3.980–5.450) 0.080 <0.001 IIC 66.3 1,193 5.847 (4.984–6.859) 0.081 <0.001 IIIA 90.0 1,926 1.582 (1.259–1.988) 0.117 <0.001 IIIB 73.9 12,307 4.100 (3.667–4.584) 0.057 <0.001 IIIC 48.0 4,261 9.900 (8.821–11.111) 0.059 <0.001 IV 16.4 6,541 22.680 (20.381–25.239) 0.055 <0.001 TNM–P staging system I–P0 96.8 9,842 1.00 (Reference) – – I–P1 90.1 2,911 3.390 (2.775–4.141) 0.102 <0.001 IIA–P0 92.6 7,080 2.048 (1.706–2.457) 0.093 <0.001 IIA–P1 84.7 9,102 4.706 (4.023–5.505) 0.080 <0.001 IIB–P0 67.7 636 6.553 (5.013–8.566) 0.137 <0.001 IIB–P1 62.3 1,001 11.180 (9.159–13.646) 0.102 <0.001 IIC–P0 76.0 285 6.149 (4.229–8.940) 0.191 <0.001 IIC–P1 62.9 908 15.022 (12.395–18.207) 0.098 <0.001 IIIA–P0 92.1 1,477 1.445 (1.031–2.023) 0.172 <0.001 IIIA–P1 82.8 449 5.721 (4.192–7.808) 0.159 <0.001 IIIB–P0 79.6 6,132 4.836 (4.106–5.696) 0.084 <0.001 IIIB–P1 68.2 6,175 10.571 (9.077–12.311) 0.078 <0.001 IIIC–P0 61.5 1,522 11.304 (9.434–13.543) 0.092 <0.001 IIIC–P1 40.1 2,739 25.475 (21.831–29.728) 0.079 <0.001 IV–P0 21.4 2,653 32.658 (28.066–38.003) 0.077 <0.001 IV–P1 12.9 3,888 53.072 (45.817–61.476) 0.075 <0.001 Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CI, confidence interval; CSS, cancer-specific survival; HR, hazard ratio; SE, standard error. Table 3 Prognosis of N-stage combined with P-stage in nonmetastatic colon cancer Variable 59-month CSS rate (%) Number of patients CSS HR (95% CI) SE P-value N-stage  N0 91.3 28,935 1.00 (Reference) – –  N1 80.9 9,936 1.855 (1.709–2.013) 0.042 <0.001  N2a 68.8 2,591 2.700 (2.412–3.022) 0.058 <0.001  N2b 54.5 1,794 4.653 (4.179–5.180) 0.055 <0.001 N–P stage  N0–P0 95.0 16,922 1.000 (Reference) – –  N0–P1 85.9 12,013 2.513 (2.241–2.817) 0.058 <0.001  N1–P0 85.6 5,474 1.964 (1.705–2.263) 0.072 <0.001  N1–P1 74.9 4,462 4.541 (4.009–5.143) 0.064 <0.001  N2a–P0 74.6 1,346 2.870 (2.356–3.496) 0.101 <0.001  N2a–P1 62.5 1,245 6.607 (5.650–7.726) 0.080 <0.001  N2b–P0 67.0 772 5.006 (4.101–6.111) 0.102 <0.001  N2b–P1 44.9 1,022 11.363 (9.803–13.172) 0.075 <0.001 Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CSS, cancer-specific survival; HR, hazard ratio; SE, standard error. ==== Refs References 1 Siegel RL Miller KD Fedewa SA Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014 CA Cancer J Clin 2017 67 3 177 193 28248415 2 Weiser MR Gönen M Chou JF Kattan MW Schrag D Predicting survival after curative colectomy for cancer: individualizing colon cancer staging J Clin Oncol 2011 29 36 4796 4802 22084366 3 Kune GA Kune S Field B Survival in patients with large-bowel cancer. A population-based investigation from the Melbourne Colorectal Cancer Study Dis Colon Rectum 1990 33 11 938 946 2226081 4 Phillips RK Hittinger R Blesovsky L Fry JS Fielding LP Large bowel cancer: surgical pathology and its relationship to survival Br J Surg 1984 71 8 604 610 6743980 5 Kornprat P Pollheimer MJ Lindtner RA Schlemmer A Rehak P Langner C Value of tumor size as a prognostic variable in colorectal cancer: a critical reappraisal Am J Clin Oncol 2011 34 1 43 49 20101166 6 Aquina CT Mohile SG Tejani MA The impact of age on complications, survival, and cause of death following colon cancer surgery Br J Cancer 2017 116 3 389 397 28056465 7 Patel SS Nelson R Sanchez J Elderly patients with colon cancer have unique tumor characteristics and poor survival Cancer 2013 119 4 739 747 23011893 8 Yamano T Yamauchi S Kimura K Influence of age and comorbidity on prognosis and application of adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly Japanese patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective multicentre study Eur J Cancer 2017 81 90 101 28622612 9 Mulcahy HE Patchett SE Daly L O’Donoghue DP Prognosis of elderly patients with large bowel cancer Br J Surg 1994 81 5 736 738 8044567 10 Cerottini JP Caplin S Pampallona S Givel JC Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer Oncol Rep 1999 6 2 409 414 10023012 11 Gill S Loprinzi CL Sargent DJ Pooled analysis of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy for stage II and III colon cancer: who benefits and by how much? J Clin Oncol 2004 22 10 1797 1806 15067028 12 Saha S Kanaan MN Shaik M Tumor size as a prognostic factor for patients with colon cancer undergoing sentinel lymph node mapping and conventional surgery J Clin Oncol 2013 31 4_suppl 546 13 Saha S Shaik M Johnston G Tumor size predicts long-term survival in colon cancer: an analysis of the National Cancer Data Base Am J Surg 2015 209 3 570 574 25601557 14 Sagara Y Freedman RA Vaz-Luis I Patient Prognostic Score and Associations With Survival Improvement Offered by Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study J Clin Oncol 2016 34 11 1190 1196 26834064 15 Compton C Fenoglio-Preiser CM Pettigrew N Fielding LP American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference: Colorectal Working Group Cancer 1999 86 11 2436 10590388 16 O’Connell JB Maggard MA Ko CY Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition staging J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96 19 1420 1425 15467030 17 Weiser MR Landmann RG Kattan MW Individualized prediction of colon cancer recurrence using a nomogram J Clin Oncol 2008 26 3 380 385 18202413 18 Benson AB 3rd Schrag D Somerfield MR American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer J Clin Oncol 2004 22 16 3408 3419 15199089 19 Ganapathi AM Speicher PJ Englum BR Adjuvant chemotherapy for T1 node-positive colon cancers provides significant survival benefit Dis Colon Rectum 2014 57 12 1341 1348 25379998 20 Thirunavukarasu P Sukumar S Sathaiah M C-stage in colon cancer: implications of carcinoembryonic antigen biomarker in staging, prognosis, and management J Natl Cancer Inst 2011 103 8 689 697 21421861 21 Arena EA Bilchik AJ What is the optimal means of staging colon cancer? Adv Surg 2013 47 1 199 211 24298852 22 Schmoll HJ Cartwright T Tabernero J Phase III trial of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: a planned safety analysis in 1,864 patients J Clin Oncol 2007 25 1 102 109 17194911 23 Casadaban L Rauscher G Aklilu M Villenes D Freels S Maker AV Adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in patients with stage II colon cancer Cancer 2016 122 21 3277 3287 27417445 24 O’Connor ES Greenblatt DY LoConte NK Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer with poor prognostic features J Clin Oncol 2011 29 25 3381 3388 21788561 25 Quah HM Chou JF Gonen M Identification of patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer for adjuvant therapy Dis Colon Rectum 2008 51 5 503 507 18322753 26 Sargent DJ Goldberg RM Jacobson SD A pooled analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer in elderly patients N Engl J Med 2001 345 15 1091 1097 11596588 27 Labianca R Nordlinger B Beretta GD Early colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann Oncol 2013 24 Suppl 6 vi64 vi72 24078664 28 Verhoeff SR van Erning FN Lemmens VE de Wilt JH Pruijt JF Adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with improved survival for all high-risk factors in stage II colon cancer Int J Cancer 2016 139 1 187 193 26914273 29 Wolmark N Fisher B Wieand HS The prognostic significance of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels in colorectal cancer. Results from NSABP (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project) clinical trials Ann Surg 1984 199 4 375 382 6370155 30 Roth AD Delorenzi M Tejpar S Integrated analysis of molecular and clinical prognostic factors in stage II/III colon cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 2012 104 21 1635 1646 23104212