First, it is important to note that we are talking about pathological stage and not clinical staging.

Second, I would suggest to you that in non-formal intra-medical conversations, the disease is most often referred to as simply T1, T2, T3 and T4 rather than the extended sub-categories, unless it is thought that the further breakdown has real significance, in relation to other factors.

Third, in a disease that has the extended time-frame progression of prostate cancer, a median of 21 months seems to be exceptionally short on which to base any concrete conclusions.

Fourth, without the sub-definitions, more delineated research results would be less available in the literature, [making] study result comparisons more difficult.

The TNM staging system was instituted in a declared attempt to further separate characteristic differences from the much more broadly defined, A, B, C and D definitions used in the previously popular Jewett System.

Since MEANINGFUL research is so badly needed in the field of prostate cancer, even the suggestion that this study’s data would justify altering the present TNM staging categories, is probably grossly premature in my opinion. – John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaks