Hereditary and Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Related Early Onset Colorectal Cancer Have Unique Characteristics and Clinical Course Compared with Sporadic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Early onset colorectal cancer (EoCRC), diagnosed in those <50 years old, is increasing in incidence. We sought to differentiate characteristics and outcomes of EoCRC in patients with sporadic disease or preexisting conditions. Methods: We evaluated 2,135 patients with EoCRC in a population-based cohort from the Canadian province of British Columbia. Patients were identified on the basis of presence of hereditary syndromes (n = 146) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; n = 87) and compared with patients with sporadic EoCRC (n = 1,902). Results: Proportions of patients with preexisting conditions were highest in the youngest decile of 18–29 (34.3%, P < 0.0001). Patients with sporadic EoCRC were older, more likely female, and had increased BMI (P < 0.05). IBD-related EoCRC had the highest rates of metastatic disease, poor differentiation, adverse histology, lymphovascular, and perineural invasion (P < 0.05). Survival was lower in patients with IBD (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.54–3.13; P < 0.0001) and higher in hereditary EoCRC (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.45–0.73; P < 0.0001) compared with sporadic. Prognosis did not differ between ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease but was lower in those with undifferentiated-IBD (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01–4.05; P = 0.049). Lynch syndrome EoCRC had improved survival over familial adenomatous polyposis (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.054–0.57; P = 0.0037) and other syndromes (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11–0.99; P = 0.049). In multivariate analysis controlling for prognostic factors, hereditary EoCRC was unchanged from sporadic; however, IBD-related EoCRC had worse overall survival (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.55–3.16; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: EoCRC is heterogenous and patients with preexisting conditions have different characteristics and outcomes compared with sporadic disease. Impact: Prognostic differences identified here for young patients with colorectal cancer and predisposing conditions may help facilitate treatment planning and patient counseling. See related commentary by Hayes, p. 1775
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".