The Union for International Cancer Control's (UICC) TNM classification is a globally accepted system to describe the anatomic extent of malignant tumors. Since its development seventy years ago, the TNM classification has undergone significant revisions to reflect the current understanding of extent of disease and its role in prognosis. To ensure that revisions are evidence‐based, the UICC implemented a process for continuous improvement of the TNM classification that included a formalized system for submitting proposals for revisions directly to the UICC and an annual review of the scientific literature on staging that assessed, criticized or made suggestions for changes. The process involves review of the proposals and literature by a group of international, multidisciplinary Expert Panels. The process has been in place for 10 years and informed the development of the 7th edition of the TNM classification published in 2009. The purpose of this article is to provide a description of the annual literature review process, including the search strategy, article selection process and the roles and requirements of the Expert Panels in the review of the literature. Since 2002, 147 Expert Panel members in 11 cancer sites have reviewed over 770 articles. The results of the annual literature reviews, Expert Panel feedback and documentation and dissemination of results are described.

In Canada, clinical practice guidelines recommend breast cancer screening, but there are gaps in adherence to recommendations for screening, particularly among certain hard-to-reach populations, that may differ by province. We compared stage of diagnosis, proportion of screen-detected breast cancers, and length of diagnostic interval for immigrant women versus long-term residents of BC and Ontario. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases in BC and Ontario. We identified all women residing in either province who were diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2011, and determined who was foreign-born using the Immigration Refugee and Citizenship Canada database. We used descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses to describe the sample and study outcomes. We conducted multivariate analyses (modified Poisson regression and quantile regression) to control for potential confounders. There were 14,198 BC women and 46,952 Ontario women included in the study population, of which 11.8 and 11.7% were foreign-born respectively. In both provinces, immigrants and long-term residents had similar primary care access. In both provinces, immigrant women were significantly less likely to have a screen-detected breast cancer (adjusted relative risk 0.88 [0.79–0.96] in BC, 0.88 [0.84–0.93] in Ontario) and had a significantly longer median diagnostic interval (2 [0.2–3.8] days in BC, 5.5 [4.4–6.6] days in Ontario) than long-term residents. Women from East Asia and the Pacific were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer and had a longer diagnostic interval, but were diagnosed at an earlier stage than long-term residents. In Ontario, women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer, had a longer median diagnostic interval, and were diagnosed at a later stage than long-term residents. These findings were not explained by access to primary care. There are inequalities in breast cancer diagnosis for Canadian immigrant women. We have identified particular immigrant groups (women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia) that appear to be subject to disparities in the diagnostic process that need to be addressed in order to effectively reduce gaps in care.

Introduction Accurate, individualized prognostication for lung cancer patients requires the integration of standard patient and pathologic factors, biological, genetic, and other molecular characteristics of the tumor. Clinical prognostic tools aim to aggregate information on an individual patient to predict disease outcomes such as overall survival, but little is known about their clinical utility and accuracy in lung cancer. Methods A systematic search of the scientific literature for clinical prognostic tools in lung cancer published from January 1, 1996 to January 27, 2015 was performed. In addition, web-based resources were searched. A priori criteria determined by the Molecular Modellers Working Group of the American Joint Committee on Cancer were used to investigate the quality and usefulness of tools. Criteria included clinical presentation, model development approaches, validation strategies, and performance metrics. Results Thirty-two prognostic tools were identified. Patients with metastases were the most frequently considered population in non–small-cell lung cancer. All tools for small-cell lung cancer covered that entire patient population. Included prognostic factors varied considerably across tools. Internal validity was not formally evaluated for most tools and only 11 were evaluated for external validity. Two key considerations were highlighted for tool development: identification of an explicit purpose related to a relevant clinical population and clear decision points and prioritized inclusion of established prognostic factors over emerging factors. Conclusions Prognostic tools will contribute more meaningfully to the practice of personalized medicine if better study design and analysis approaches are used in their development and validation.