Angeline S Andrew1, Siddhartha Parker2,3, Joseph C Anderson2,4, Judy R Rees2,5, Christina Robinson2,3, Bruce Riddle5, Lynn F Butterly2,3. 1. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA. Angeline.Andrew@dartmouth.edu. 2. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA. 3. Section of Gastroenterology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 4. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, VT, USA. 5. New Hampshire State Cancer Registry, Hanover, NH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with significantly less effective treatment and poorer survival than early-stage colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Identify and assess patient characteristics, demographic factors, and lifestyle factors that are associated with late-stage colorectal cancer at diagnosis. APPROACH: We linked two longstanding statewide, population-based registry databases: the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry and the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry, to assess the associations between patient characteristics and late-stage CRC diagnoses. The State Cancer Registry provided information on cancer stage and the Colonoscopy Registry provided detailed information on patient characteristics and lifestyle factors, allowing these factors to be analyzed in relation to colorectal cancer stage. KEY RESULTS: The risk of late-stage CRC diagnosis was highest among those diagnosed at a young age (< 50 years old) (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.27-2.58). Those with Medicaid were also at increased risk, particularly < 65 years of age (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.05-5.26). A family or personal history of polyps and/or CRC was associated with early stage at diagnosis (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Public health outreach and screening efforts should focused on patients at risk of late-stage CRC to encourage earlier diagnosis and prevention. Underserved patients have a lower rate of CRC screening and an increased risk of late-stage CRC, emphasizing the critical need to reach these populations. Further investigation of susceptibility characteristics and the effectiveness of non-invasive early screening techniques is warranted to address the late-stage CRC diagnoses in young individuals.
BACKGROUND: Late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with significantly less effective treatment and poorer survival than early-stage colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Identify and assess patient characteristics, demographic factors, and lifestyle factors that are associated with late-stage colorectal cancer at diagnosis. APPROACH: We linked two longstanding statewide, population-based registry databases: the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry and the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry, to assess the associations between patient characteristics and late-stage CRC diagnoses. The State Cancer Registry provided information on cancer stage and the Colonoscopy Registry provided detailed information on patient characteristics and lifestyle factors, allowing these factors to be analyzed in relation to colorectal cancer stage. KEY RESULTS: The risk of late-stage CRC diagnosis was highest among those diagnosed at a young age (< 50 years old) (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.27-2.58). Those with Medicaid were also at increased risk, particularly < 65 years of age (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.05-5.26). A family or personal history of polyps and/or CRC was associated with early stage at diagnosis (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Public health outreach and screening efforts should focused on patients at risk of late-stage CRC to encourage earlier diagnosis and prevention. Underserved patients have a lower rate of CRC screening and an increased risk of late-stage CRC, emphasizing the critical need to reach these populations. Further investigation of susceptibility characteristics and the effectiveness of non-invasive early screening techniques is warranted to address the late-stage CRC diagnoses in young individuals.
Entities:
Keywords:
age; colonoscopy; colorectal; polyps; stage; young
Authors: Samir Gupta; Daniel A Sussman; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Lukejohn Day; Amar R Deshpande; B Joseph Elmunzer; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jeanette Mendez; Ma Somsouk; James Allison; Taft Bhuket; Zhuo Geng; Beverly B Green; Steven H Itzkowitz; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cathy J Bradley; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; K Robin Yabroff; Bassam Dahman; Angela Mariotto; Eric J Feuer; Martin L Brown Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sumitra Ananda; Suzanne Kosmider; Ben Tran; Kathryn Field; Ian Jones; Iain Skinner; Mario Guerrieri; Michael Chapman; Peter Gibbs Journal: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 2.601
Authors: Jean A Shapiro; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor D Thompson; Marion R Nadel; Laura C Seeff; Arica White Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Zaid M Abdelsattar; Sandra L Wong; Scott E Regenbogen; Diana M Jomaa; Karin M Hardiman; Samantha Hendren Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Tor D Tosteson; Louise C Walter; Peiying Hua; Tracy Onega Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Michael C Leo; Katrina Ramsey; Jennifer Coury; Amanda F Petrik; Mary Patzel; Erin S Kenzie; Jamie H Thompson; Erik Brodt; Raj Mummadi; Nancy Elder; Melinda M Davis Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2022-04-13
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Beverly B Green; Imara I West; Malaika R Schwartz; Jennifer K Coury; William M Vollmer; Jean A Shapiro; Amanda F Petrik; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 6.860