Clinical Implications of Nonbiological Factors With Colorectal Cancer Patients Younger Than 45 Years.

Qi Liu, Ruoxin Zhang, Qingguo Li, Xinxiang Li
Author Information
  1. Qi Liu: Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
  2. Ruoxin Zhang: Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
  3. Qingguo Li: Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
  4. Xinxiang Li: Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical implications of non-biological factors (NBFs) with colorectal cancer (CRC) patients younger than 45 years.
METHODS: In the present study, we have conducted Cox proportional hazard regression analyses to evaluate the prognosis of different prognostic factors, the hazard ratios (HRs) were shown with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Kaplan-Meier method was utilized to compare the prognostic value of different factors with the log-rank test. NBF score was established according to the result of multivariate Cox analyses.
RESULTS: In total, 15129 patients before 45 years with known NBFs were identified from the SEER database. Only county-level median household income, marital status and insurance status were NBFs that significantly corelated with the cause specifical survival in CRC patients aged less than 45 years old (P < 0.05). Stage NBF 1 showed 50.5% increased risk of CRC-specific mortality (HR = 1.505, 95% CI = 1.411-1.606, P < 0.001). Stage NBF 0 patients were associated with significantly increased CRC-specific survival (CCSS) when compared with the stage NBF 1 patients in different AJCC TNM stages.
CONCLUSIONS: NBF stage (defined by county-level median household income, marital status and insurance status) was strongly related to the prognosis of CRC patients. NBFs should arouse enough attention of us in clinical practice of patients younger than 45 years.

Keywords

References

  1. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 20;29(36):4796-802 [PMID: 22084366]
  2. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Aug;33(8):1107-1114 [PMID: 29770845]
  3. World J Urol. 2019 Oct;37(10):2165-2173 [PMID: 30554272]
  4. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-281 [PMID: 29846947]
  5. Biology (Basel). 2020 Apr 22;9(4): [PMID: 32331481]
  6. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020 Apr 23;14:1127-1133 [PMID: 32425498]
  7. JAMA. 1987 Dec 4;258(21):3125-30 [PMID: 3669259]
  8. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul;157(1):137-148 [PMID: 30930021]
  9. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun;21(3):517-22 [PMID: 26547423]
  10. Curr Probl Cancer. 2018 Nov;42(6):548-559 [PMID: 30119911]
  11. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;95(4):1221-6 [PMID: 23415239]
  12. Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec;157(6):1691-1692 [PMID: 31542409]
  13. Cancer Med. 2018 Apr;7(4):1211-1220 [PMID: 29533006]
  14. Ann Oncol. 2017 May 1;28(5):958-968 [PMID: 28453690]
  15. Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 16;8(49):86157-86167 [PMID: 29156784]
  16. Cancer. 2015 Apr 15;121(8):1257-64 [PMID: 25564986]
  17. Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 6;8(31):51663-51674 [PMID: 28881677]
  18. J Cancer. 2019 Jun 2;10(12):2661-2669 [PMID: 31258774]
  19. Front Public Health. 2020 Feb 18;8:29 [PMID: 32133335]
  20. Oncotarget. 2015 Mar 30;6(9):7339-47 [PMID: 25749515]
  21. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015 Nov 05;1:15065 [PMID: 27189416]
  22. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Dec;57(11):2137-47 [PMID: 14512244]
  23. Oral Oncol. 2019 Feb;89:48-55 [PMID: 30732958]
  24. Cancer. 2016 May 15;122(10):1618-25 [PMID: 27065317]
  25. J Cancer. 2018 Apr 27;9(10):1870-1876 [PMID: 29805714]
  26. Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 18;8(16):26404-26413 [PMID: 28460434]
  27. Clin Transl Med. 2020 Feb 10;9(1):6 [PMID: 32037496]
  28. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Apr;149(1):43-48 [PMID: 29605049]
  29. PLoS One. 2018 Feb 15;13(2):e0193047 [PMID: 29447263]
  30. Breast Cancer Res. 2013 Jun 27;15(3):208 [PMID: 23826992]
  31. Br J Cancer. 2015 Jun 9;112(12):1888-94 [PMID: 25989278]
  32. Cancers (Basel). 2018 Aug 08;10(8): [PMID: 30096811]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0patients45NBFfactorsNBFsyearsstatus1CRCprognosisdifferent0evaluateclinicalnon-biologicalcolorectalcanceryoungerCoxhazardanalysesprognostic95%county-levelmedianhouseholdincomemaritalinsurancesignificantlysurvivalP<StageincreasedCRC-specific=stageBACKGROUND:implicationsMETHODS:presentstudyconductedproportionalregressionratiosHRsshownconfidenceintervalsCIsKaplan-Meiermethodutilizedcomparevaluelog-ranktestscoreestablishedaccordingresultmultivariateRESULTS:total15129knownidentifiedSEERdatabasecorelatedcausespecificalagedlessold05showed505%riskmortalityHR505CI411-1606001associatedCCSScomparedAJCCTNMstagesCONCLUSIONS:definedstronglyrelatedarouseenoughattentionuspracticeClinicalImplicationsNonbiologicalFactorsColorectalCancerPatientsYoungerYearsscreeningyoung

Similar Articles

Cited By