Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35451218›Full record

ReviewANZ journal of surgery2022

Early-onset colorectal cancer: why it should be high on our list of differentials.

Celine Garrett, Daniel Steffens, Michael Solomon, Cherry Koh

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Celine GarrettSurgical Outcomes Research Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0002-7255-6580
Daniel SteffensSurgical Outcomes Research Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0002-9715-860X
Michael SolomonSurgical Outcomes Research Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0002-5602-6045
Cherry KohSurgical Outcomes Research Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0003-2547-0204
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) (<50 years) incidence has increased in Australia and worldwide. However, the diagnosis of EOCRC is often delayed. Recent research has discovered some differences from later-onset colorectal cancer (LOCRC) (>50 years). An awareness of the unique features of EOCRC is crucial to reduce time from symptom onset to diagnosis.

methodsA literature search was conducted on electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) using the search terms "early onset colorectal cancer" or "young onset colorectal cancer."

resultsThe American Cancer Society has reduced the colorectal cancer screening initiation age to 45 for average-risk adults whilst screening programmes in the United Kingdom and Australia remain unchanged with initiation at 60 and 50, respectively. Exposures resulting in dysbiosis (obesity, westernised diet, alcohol, antibiotic and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption) have been linked with increased EOCRC risk. EOCRC is often left-sided presenting with rectal bleeding, altered bowel habit and constitutional symptoms. EOCRC is more commonly sporadic than hereditary, harbouring different genetic mutations than LOCRC. Comparative survival outcomes of EOCRC and LOCRC are conflicting with studies suggesting either better or poorer survival. Young patients better tolerate treatment-related toxicities, which may account for their improved survival despite comparatively advanced stages and poorer histopathological features at diagnosis.

conclusionCurrent EOCRC literature is limited by American-focused datasets and heterogenous EOCRC definitions and study designs (the greatest strength of evidence exists for EOCRC risk factor studies comprised of large retrospective cohorts). There is minimal research into the quality of life and surgical outcomes of EOCRC patients, and this area warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsQuality of LifeAdultEarly Detection of CancerHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited Statesearly-onset colorectal cancermolecular profilepresentationrisk factorsscreening

Identifiers

PMID35451218
PMCPMC9546202
OpenAlexW4224221983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-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.