Heather Yeo1, Doron Betel2, Jonathan S Abelson3, Xi E Zheng4, Rhonda Yantiss5, Manish A Shah6. 1. Department of Surgery, Center for Advanced Digestive Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY; Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 2. Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Center for Advanced Digestive Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 3. Department of Surgery, Center for Advanced Digestive Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 4. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 5. Department of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Center for Advanced Digestive Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: Mas9313@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early-onset colorectal cancer (E-CRC) is increasing in incidence, unlike traditional CRC (T-CRC). We sought to characterize differences between E-CRC and T-CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data sources included the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We compared demographics, tumor characteristics, and incidence of CRC in subjects aged 20 to 49 years (E-CRC) with those aged ≥ 50 years (T-CRC). We correlated the incidence of E-CRC and T-CRC to CRC risk factors and age-dependent genomic characteristics of CRC using TCGA. RESULTS: A total of 369,796 CRCs were identified (2000-2011). E-CRC incidence has risen 1.4% per year, whereas T-CRC has declined 3.1% per year (P < .05). The incidence of E-CRC increases in a step-wise fashion from the ascending colon to rectum (P < 2.2e-16). E-CRC is more prevalent in male (53.7% vs. 46.4%; P < .001), Black (14.6% vs. 11.0%; P < .001), and Hispanic (14.7% vs. 8.3%; P < .001) patients. E-CRC presents with aggressive histology, including high-grade (1.5% vs. 1.3%; P < .001), signet ring cell (1.9% vs. 0.9%; P < .001), and mucinous carcinomas (8.9% vs. 8.1%; P < .001), and more often with distant disease (24.4% vs. 18.8%; P < .001). The geographic distribution of E-CRC mirrors United States counties with higher Black population densities. Unlike T-CRC, E-CRC prevalence is not correlated with known CRC risk factors. E-CRC is associated with a lower rate of mutations than traditional CRC. Limitations of this study include E-CRC sample size for the TCGA analysis, as well as lack of comorbidity information and family history. CONCLUSION: E-CRC tumors are clinically, pathologically, and molecularly distinct from T-CRC. Further evaluation of genetic and molecular differences is necessary to understand the pathophysiology of E-CRC and to help target treatment/surveillance strategies.
BACKGROUND: Early-onset colorectal cancer (E-CRC) is increasing in incidence, unlike traditional CRC (T-CRC). We sought to characterize differences between E-CRC and T-CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data sources included the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We compared demographics, tumor characteristics, and incidence of CRC in subjects aged 20 to 49 years (E-CRC) with those aged ≥ 50 years (T-CRC). We correlated the incidence of E-CRC and T-CRC to CRC risk factors and age-dependent genomic characteristics of CRC using TCGA. RESULTS: A total of 369,796 CRCs were identified (2000-2011). E-CRC incidence has risen 1.4% per year, whereas T-CRC has declined 3.1% per year (P < .05). The incidence of E-CRC increases in a step-wise fashion from the ascending colon to rectum (P < 2.2e-16). E-CRC is more prevalent in male (53.7% vs. 46.4%; P < .001), Black (14.6% vs. 11.0%; P < .001), and Hispanic (14.7% vs. 8.3%; P < .001) patients. E-CRC presents with aggressive histology, including high-grade (1.5% vs. 1.3%; P < .001), signet ring cell (1.9% vs. 0.9%; P < .001), and mucinous carcinomas (8.9% vs. 8.1%; P < .001), and more often with distant disease (24.4% vs. 18.8%; P < .001). The geographic distribution of E-CRC mirrors United States counties with higher Black population densities. Unlike T-CRC, E-CRC prevalence is not correlated with known CRC risk factors. E-CRC is associated with a lower rate of mutations than traditional CRC. Limitations of this study include E-CRC sample size for the TCGA analysis, as well as lack of comorbidity information and family history. CONCLUSION:E-CRC tumors are clinically, pathologically, and molecularly distinct from T-CRC. Further evaluation of genetic and molecular differences is necessary to understand the pathophysiology of E-CRC and to help target treatment/surveillance strategies.
Authors: Belisa G Muller; Paulo C Contu; Cláudio Tarta; Anderson R Lazzaron; Tiago L Ghezzi; Daniel C Damin Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Lorne J Hofseth; James R Hebert; Anindya Chanda; Hexin Chen; Bryan L Love; Maria M Pena; E Angela Murphy; Mathew Sajish; Amit Sheth; Phillip J Buckhaults; Franklin G Berger Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 46.802