ArticleCancer medicine2026
Harmonization Framework for Translating Clinical Cancer Staging Systems for Public Health and Surveillance Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Validation Using Indian Cancer Registry Data.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough accurate information on cancer stage at diagnosis is critical for surveillance, cancer registries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) report incomplete stage data. The use of multiple stage classification systems-UICC/AJCC-TNM-system, SEER-Summary-Stage (SSS), Essential-TNM (ETNM), and Condensed-TNM (CTNM) complicates their utility and interoperability. The lack of a unified framework for translating between their categories limits data harmonization for global epidemiological analyses. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study introduces a mapping framework for translating these four staging systems for common screening-amenable cancers (breast, cervical, colorectal, and oral). Using the TNM criteria as reference, all categories were systematically compared and mapped to corresponding categories in SSS, ETNM, and CTNM. The fields were color-coded to visualize prognostic gradients across classifications. This mapping was then validated using a registry-wide representative sample of 4,000 cancer cases with an assigned TNM stage. Matches were categorized as either being complete or as first- or second-degree mismatches to assess the extent of concordance and discordance.
resultsOur analysis highlighted cancer-specific variations in prognostic gradation and concordance. Cervical and colorectal cancers had a steady gradient, representing the best-case scenarios, while breast and oral cancers showed greater discordance. Overall, SSS aligned with TNM categories, depicting maximal one-to-one associations. While ETNM is more concordant for colorectal cancer (100% match vs. 89%), SSS is most concordant for cervical cancer (80%), and to a lesser extent, breast cancer (77%). CTNM offers the least concordance with traditional TNM across cancer sites. Localized and metastatic stages aligned almost universally, except in oral cancer.
conclusionThis mapping exercise provided a comprehensive framework for translating cancer stage categories, offering LMIC registries a way to balance clinical relevance, epidemiological utility, and operational feasibility. Concordance among the systems varied by cancer type, underscoring the need for cancer-specific adaptations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.