BACKGROUND: There is an alarming rise in incidence among young patients with rectal cancer. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Analysis (SEER) databases may help identify population level disparities in incidence and cancer-related outcomes. METHODS: A total of 197,178 patients within the SEER 18 registry and 221,886 patients from the NCDB database with rectal cancer were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. The analyzed cohort consisted of young (<50), white or African American patients. Indication bias was mitigated by conducting inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis using binary logistic regression modeling to determine propensity score for being white or African American. RESULTS: A total of 6,144 young patients were identified from the SEER 18 registry and a total of 17,819 young patients were identified from the NCDB. From 1990 to 2016, there was a significant change in rectal cancer incidence, with a steadily increasing APC of 3.06 (P<0.05). The was no overall change in age-adjusted APC among young African American patients (APC 0.00, P=1); however, there was a significant increase among young white patients (APC 2.97, P<0.05). There was an increased incidence for both stage III and IV among young rectal cancer patients, with an age-adjusted APC of 5.35 and 3.83, respectively (P<0.05). After propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting, young African Americans had worse overall survival in both the NCDB and SEER (HR 1.1-1.3, P<0.05) databases. This disparity was also seen for cancer-specific survival (HR 1.5, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The current study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating an alarming increase in incidence of rectal cancer among young patients. Moreover, the incidence appears to be increasing particularly among young white patients and driven by stage III disease. 2020 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: There is an alarming rise in incidence among young patients with rectal cancer. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Analysis (SEER) databases may help identify population level disparities in incidence and cancer-related outcomes. METHODS: A total of 197,178 patients within the SEER 18 registry and 221,886 patients from the NCDB database with rectal cancer were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. The analyzed cohort consisted of young (<50), white or African American patients. Indication bias was mitigated by conducting inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis using binary logistic regression modeling to determine propensity score for being white or African American. RESULTS: A total of 6,144 young patients were identified from the SEER 18 registry and a total of 17,819 young patients were identified from the NCDB. From 1990 to 2016, there was a significant change in rectal cancer incidence, with a steadily increasing APC of 3.06 (P<0.05). The was no overall change in age-adjusted APC among young African American patients (APC 0.00, P=1); however, there was a significant increase among young white patients (APC 2.97, P<0.05). There was an increased incidence for both stage III and IV among young rectal cancer patients, with an age-adjusted APC of 5.35 and 3.83, respectively (P<0.05). After propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting, young African Americans had worse overall survival in both the NCDB and SEER (HR 1.1-1.3, P<0.05) databases. This disparity was also seen for cancer-specific survival (HR 1.5, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The current study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating an alarming increase in incidence of rectal cancer among young patients. Moreover, the incidence appears to be increasing particularly among young white patients and driven by stage III disease. 2020 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Katherine M Flegal; Deanna Kruszon-Moran; Margaret D Carroll; Cheryl D Fryar; Cynthia L Ogden Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Craig M Hales; Cheryl D Fryar; Margaret D Carroll; David S Freedman; Yutaka Aoki; Cynthia L Ogden Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Po-Hong Liu; Kana Wu; Kimmie Ng; Ann G Zauber; Long H Nguyen; Mingyang Song; Xiaosheng He; Charles S Fuchs; Shuji Ogino; Walter C Willett; Andrew T Chan; Edward L Giovannucci; Yin Cao Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Stacey A Fedewa; William F Anderson; Kimberly D Miller; Jiemin Ma; Philip S Rosenberg; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rubayat Rahman; Chester Schmaltz; Christian S Jackson; Eduardo J Simoes; Jeannette Jackson-Thompson; Jamal A Ibdah Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Amanda B Crosbie; Lisa M Roche; Linda M Johnson; Karen S Pawlish; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 4.452