Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25415667›Full record

ArticleMedicine2014

Young patients (≤ 35 years old) with colorectal cancer have worse outcomes due to more advanced disease: a 30-year retrospective review.

Jianfei Fu, Jiao Yang, Yinuo Tan, Mengjie Jiang, Fei Wen, Yanqin Huang, Hailong Chen, Chenghao Yi, Shu Zheng, Ying Yuan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung metastases from colorectal cancer: outcomes and prognostic factors in a series of 109 patients.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    Article
  16. Focusing on colorectal cancer in young adults (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jianfei FuFrom the The Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Intervention, Chinese Ministry of Education; Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Medical Sciences; Cancer Institute, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou (JF, JY, YT, MJ, FW, YH, HC, CY, SZ); Department of Oncology, Jinhua Central Hospital, (Jinhua Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Jinhua City (JF); and Department of Medical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China (JY, YT, MJ, YY).
Jiao Yang
Yinuo Tan
Mengjie Jiang
Fei Wen
Yanqin Huang
Hailong Chen
Chenghao Yi
Shu Zheng
Ying Yuan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An appropriate cutoff of age and the impact of age on colorectal cancer outcomes remain unclear and need to be explored, particularly in China.In total, 2460 colorectal cancer patients were studied retrospectively. All patients were divided into 6 groups according to their ages at the time of diagnosis: ≤ 30, 31 to 35, 36 to 40, 41 to 45, 46 to 50, and ≥ 50 years. A suitable cutoff age for defining young adult colorectal cancer was explored according to the distribution of survival in each group. Clinical characteristics and prognosis between the young adult group and the older group were then compared.According to the survival curves for each group, 35 years old was considered a suitable cutoff age for defining young adult colorectal cancer. There were 140 (5.7%) and 2320 (94.3%) cases in the young adult and older groups, respectively. The proportion of stage III-IV tumors was significantly higher in the young adult group (69.3%) than in the older group (46.4%) (P  =  0.000). The univariate analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate and the 10-year OS rate in the young adult group were 48.9% and 38.6%, respectively, whereas in the older group, they were 63.6% and 56.9%, respectively. The young adult group had a worse prognosis (P  =  0.000). The multivariate analysis showed that age was not an independent prognostic factor (relative risk 0.787, P  =  0.062). After adjusting for tumor stage, the hazard proportion of death in the young adult group increased by 27.6%, but this difference was not significant (P  =  0.053). Stratified analyses showed that the young adults with stage IV tumors had a worse survival rate (P  =  0.046).Patients ≤ 35 years who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer had a worse prognosis because of a higher proportion of advanced stage tumors. When stage-to-stage analysis was performed, it was found that young adult colorectal cancer patients had a worse outcome only if they had stage IV tumors.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25415667
PMCPMC4616343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.