ArticleCureus2026
National Trends in Rectal Cancer Among Younger Patients: A National Cancer Database Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, the incidence of new rectal cancer diagnoses among younger patients (< 50 years) has been increasing at alarming rates. Paradoxically, previous studies show that younger patients present with more advanced-stage disease; however, they have better survival rates than older individuals. In this study, we aim to examine the clinical and pathologic trends in younger patients with rectal cancer in a contemporary cohort. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was conducted to examine characteristics of invasive rectal cancer diagnoses between younger (< 50 years old) and older (≥ 50 years old) individuals in a dataset from 2004 to 2021. Joinpoint regression analysis (version 5.3.0.0, U.S. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to examine trends in rectal cancer over time. Chi-square analyses were utilized to determine differences in proportions of patients with earlier (Stage I/II) and later (Stage III/IV) clinical stage or grade disease between patients in the two age groups. Overall survival (all-cause mortality) was compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 171,543 rectal adenocarcinoma patients from NCDB were analyzed. Joinpoint analysis revealed a rise in rectal cancer rates for both older (annual percent change (APC) 4.2% from 2011 to 2021) and younger groups (5.4% from 2004 to 2021), with a more rapid increase in the younger group. Younger patients were more likely to present with advanced stage (III and IV) disease (p < 0.001) and higher-grade tumors (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed worse median survival for younger patients at advanced (III and IV) stages of disease (-0.129 years, p = 0.016); however, there was no difference at earlier stages (p = 0.900). When stratified by tumor grade, those with higher-grade (Grade 3/4) tumors had significantly better survival than those with lower-grade (Grade 1/2) tumors (median difference: -1.071 years, p < 0.001).
conclusionThere is a rising incidence of rectal cancer in young patients, who often present with advanced disease and demonstrate worse outcomes than older patients when advanced, likely due to delayed diagnosis and treatment. The high prevalence of late-stage diagnoses underscores the need for improved awareness and targeted screening strategies to promote earlier detection. Addressing these disparities is essential to optimizing screening, care, and outcomes for these patients.
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.