4.5 Article

Improved survival in an Asian cohort of young colorectal cancer patients: an analysis of 523 patients from a single institution

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages 1075-1083

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-009-0701-7

Keywords

Young colorectal cancer; Sporadic; Survival; Incidence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Colorectal cancer (CRC) in the young is rare. Outcomes remain varied compared to older populations. The study reviews characteristics and overall survival (OS) of CRC in patients a parts per thousand currency sign50 years old. Five hundred and twenty-three (14%) of 3,796 sporadic CRCs were identified. Patients were compared for demographics, tumour characteristics, treatment, and 5-year overall specific survival. Independent prognostic factors were evaluated. The majority were males (54%) with a median age of 45 years (range 19-50 years). Sixty-three percent of the patients presented with advanced stage disease (stage III and IV), and tumours were predominantly left-sided (83%). A higher frequency of mucinous or signet ring cell histological subtypes (16% vs 9%, p = 0.028) as well as poorly differentiated tumours (30% vs 12%, p = 0.0001) were present in younger patients a parts per thousand currency sign40 years. With a median follow-up of 41 months, the 5-year OS is 58% (95% confidence interval 53-64%). Younger patients a parts per thousand currency sign40 years had significantly superior 5-year OS of 62% vs 58% in the age group 41-50 years old (p = 0.004). Multivariate analysis identified five independent prognostic features: age group of 41-50 years, poorly differentiated tumour grade, presence of perineural infiltration, high tumour stage, and carcinoembryonic antigen values a parts per thousand yen5 ng/ml. This study has revealed significantly improved 5-year survival in young CRC compared to those reported in the literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available