Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec;16(4):293-299.e6.
doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2017.06.002. Epub 2017 Jun 23.

Early-onset Colorectal Cancer is Distinct From Traditional Colorectal Cancer

Heather Yeo  1 , Doron Betel  2 , Jonathan S Abelson  3 , Xi E Zheng  4 , Rhonda Yantiss  5 , Manish A Shah  6
Affiliations

Early-onset Colorectal Cancer is Distinct From Traditional Colorectal Cancer

Heather Yeo et al. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017 Dec.

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.

Keywords: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; Colorectal neoplasms; Epidemiology; Risk factors; SEER program.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types