BACKGROUND: The risk of lymph node positivity (LN+) in rectal cancer is a parameter that impacts therapeutic recommendations. We aimed to quantify the effect of younger age on LN+ in rectal cancer. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with rectal cancer diagnosed between 1988 and 2008 were identified. Patients were stage I-III, without preoperative radiotherapy, at least one lymph node examined, and a standard rectal cancer operation performed. The association of age and LN+ status was examined with logistic regression separately for each T stage, adjusting for multiple covariates. Poisson regression was used to evaluate age and number of positive lymph nodes (LNs). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Fifty-six thousand seventy-six patients were identified, including 1194 (2.1%) patients age 20 to 39 years at diagnosis and 4199 (7.5%) patients age 40 to 49 years (defined as young). For each T stage, LN+ was inversely associated with age (all P < .001). For T1, T2, and T3, age remained predictive of LN+ status after adjustment for number of LNs examined and other covariates (P < .001 for each stage). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for LN+ for age 20 to 39 vs 60 to 69 were: T1: 1.97(95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 2.86); T2: 1.48 (95% CI = 1.13 to 1.95); T3: 1.30 (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.53). Young age was a statistically significant predictor of an increased number of LNs positive for stage T2 (P = .042) and T3 (P = .002). CONCLUSION: In this large national dataset, young age at diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of LN+. This finding merits further investigation and may ultimately impact treatment decision-making for young early-stage patients.
BACKGROUND: The risk of lymph node positivity (LN+) in rectal cancer is a parameter that impacts therapeutic recommendations. We aimed to quantify the effect of younger age on LN+ in rectal cancer. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with rectal cancer diagnosed between 1988 and 2008 were identified. Patients were stage I-III, without preoperative radiotherapy, at least one lymph node examined, and a standard rectal cancer operation performed. The association of age and LN+ status was examined with logistic regression separately for each T stage, adjusting for multiple covariates. Poisson regression was used to evaluate age and number of positive lymph nodes (LNs). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Fifty-six thousand seventy-six patients were identified, including 1194 (2.1%) patients age 20 to 39 years at diagnosis and 4199 (7.5%) patients age 40 to 49 years (defined as young). For each T stage, LN+ was inversely associated with age (all P < .001). For T1, T2, and T3, age remained predictive of LN+ status after adjustment for number of LNs examined and other covariates (P < .001 for each stage). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for LN+ for age 20 to 39 vs 60 to 69 were: T1: 1.97(95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 2.86); T2: 1.48 (95% CI = 1.13 to 1.95); T3: 1.30 (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.53). Young age was a statistically significant predictor of an increased number of LNs positive for stage T2 (P = .042) and T3 (P = .002). CONCLUSION: In this large national dataset, young age at diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of LN+. This finding merits further investigation and may ultimately impact treatment decision-making for young early-stage patients.
Authors: Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael Schaapveld; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Winette T A van der Graaf; Renée Otter; Jakob de Vries; Pax H B Willemse Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-02-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joshua E Meyer; Tarun Narang; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Mark B Pochapin; Paul J Christos; David L Sherr Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Leopoldo Sarli; Giovanni Bader; Domenico Iusco; Carlo Salvemini; Davide Di Mauro; Antonio Mazzeo; Gabriele Regina; Luigi Roncoroni Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sean C Glasgow; Joshua I S Bleier; Lawrence J Burgart; Charles O Finne; Ann C Lowry Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: T E Le Voyer; E R Sigurdson; A L Hanlon; R J Mayer; J S Macdonald; P J Catalano; D G Haller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mohamed E Salem; Francesca Battaglin; Richard M Goldberg; Alberto Puccini; Anthony F Shields; David Arguello; W Michael Korn; John L Marshall; Axel Grothey; Heinz-Josef Lenz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-12-17
Authors: Christopher H Lieu; Erica A Golemis; Ilya G Serebriiskii; Justin Newberg; Amanda Hemmerich; Caitlin Connelly; Wells A Messersmith; Cathy Eng; S Gail Eckhardt; Garrett Frampton; Matthew Cooke; Joshua E Meyer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nicolette Taku; Y Nancy Yi-Qian; George J Chang; Ethan B Ludmir; Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Emma Brey Holliday; Grace L Smith; Bruce D Minsky; Michael J Overman; Craig Messick; David Boyce-Fappiano; Albert C Koong; John Michael Skibber; Eugene Jon Koay; Arvind Dasari; Cullen M Taniguchi; Brian K Bednarski; Van K Morris; Scott Kopetz; Prajnan Das Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Alicia Latham; Jinru Shia; Zalak Patel; Diane L Reidy-Lagunes; Neil H Segal; Rona Yaeger; Karuna Ganesh; Louise Connell; Nancy E Kemeny; David P Kelsen; Jaclyn F Hechtman; Garrett M Nash; Philip B Paty; Ahmet Zehir; Kaitlin A Tkachuk; Rania Sheikh; Arnold J Markowitz; Diana Mandelker; Kenneth Offit; Michael F Berger; Andrea Cercek; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Leonard B Saltz; Martin R Weiser; Zsofia K Stadler Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 13.801