ArticleScientific reports2024
A decade-long study on pathological distinctions of resectable early versus late onset colorectal cancer and optimal screening age determination.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in Sweden and Finland: A Multicentre Retrospective Cohort Study Over Three Decades.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- A Clinicopathologic, Molecular, and Prognostic Comparison Between Early- and Late-Onset Colorectal Cancer in Korea: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Surgical treatment of colorectal cancer: A multidimensional review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of sporadic, IBD-associated, early-onset and late-onset colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The incidence of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (EOCRC) is increasing. However, the prognosis of EOCRC compared to Late-Onset Colorectal Cancer (LOCRC), and the ideal age for initial colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are not clear. In this study, we identified the pathological differences between the groups and determined the optimal screening age for CRC patients. We included 10,172 patients diagnosed with CRC from January 2011 to December 2021 in this study. Survival differences were compared by plotting Kaplan-Meier survival curves and conducting landmark analysis. Additionally, the diagnostic age of CRC patients was analyzed using age cumulative curves. Compared to LOCRC patients, EOCRC patients had a higher proportion of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and more advanced TNM staging (P < 0.05). The five-year survival of EOCRC patients was significantly better than that of LOCRC patients (P < 0.05). Laparoscopic surgery improved the long-term survival of EOCRC patients. Proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) favored the long-term survival of EOCRC patients. The survival rate of EOCRC patients at TNM stages I and II was higher than that of LOCRC patients at the same stages (P < 0.05). The age cumulative curve showed a substantial increase in the number of CRC patients at 40 years. The long-term prognosis of EOCRC patients is better than that of LOCRC patients, especially among those with pMMR, stages I-II, and who undergo laparoscopic surgery. For people with a high risk of cancer, such as a family history of cancer and poor lifestyle habits, the starting age for CRC screening should be 40 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.