4.7 Article

Recent trends in the age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer in the US National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2015

期刊

CANCER
卷 125, 期 21, 页码 3828-3835

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32347

关键词

age; colorectal cancer; diagnosis; National Cancer Data Base (NCDB)

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults younger than 50 years has increased in the United States over the past decades according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. National guidelines conflict over beginning screening at the age of 45 or 50 years. Methods This was a retrospective study of National Cancer Data Base data from 2004 to 2015. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to assess changes in the proportion of cases diagnosed at an age younger than 50 years. Results This study identified 130,165 patients diagnosed at an age younger than 50 years and 1,055,598 patients diagnosed at the age of 50 years or older. The proportion of the total number of patients diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years rose (12.2% in 2015 vs 10.0% in 2004; P < .0001). Younger adults presented with more advanced disease (stage III/IV; 51.6% vs 40.0% of those 50 years old or older). Among men, diagnosis at ages younger than 50 years rose only in non-Hispanic whites (P < .0001), whereas among women, Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites had increases in younger diagnoses over time (P < .05). All income quartiles had a proportional increase in younger adults over time (P < .001), with the highest income quartile having the highest proportion of younger cases. The proportion of younger onset CRC cases rose in urban areas (P < .001) but did not rise in rural areas. Conclusions The proportion of persons diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years in the United States has continued to increase over the past decade, and younger adults present with more advanced disease. These data should be considered in the ongoing discussion of screening guidelines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据