TY - JOUR
T1 - Characteristics of differently located colorectal cancers support proximal and distal classification
T2 - A population-based study of 57,847 patients
AU - Yang, Jiao
AU - Du, Xiang Lin
AU - Li, Shu Ting
AU - Wang, Bi Yuan
AU - Wu, Yin Ying
AU - Chen, Zhe Ling
AU - Lv, Meng
AU - Shen, Yan Wei
AU - Wang, Xin
AU - Dong, Dan Feng
AU - Li, Dan
AU - Wang, Fan
AU - Li, En Xiao
AU - Yi, Min
AU - Yang, Jin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2016/12
Y1 - 2016/12
N2 - Background: It has been suggested that colorectal cancer be regarded as several subgroups defined according to tumor location rather than as a single entity. The current study aimed to identify the most useful method for grouping colorectal cancer by tumor location according to both baseline and survival characteristics. Methods: Cases of pathologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed from 2000 to 2012 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and categorized into three groups: right colon cancer (RCC), left colon cancer (LCC), and rectal cancer (ReC). Adjusted hazard ratios for known predictors of disease-specific survival (DSS) in colorectal cancer were obtained using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: The study included 57847 patients: 43.5% with RCC, 37.7% with LCC, and 18.8% with ReC. Compared with LCC and ReC, RCC was more likely to affect old patients and women, and to be at advanced stage, poorly differentiated or un-differentiated, and mucinous. Patients with LCC or ReC had better DSS than those with RCC in subgroups including stage III or IV disease, age ≤70 years and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma. Conversely, patients with LCC or ReC had worse DSS than those with RCC in subgroups including age >70 years and mucinous adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: RCC differed from both LCC and ReC in several clinicopathologic characteristics and in DSS. It seems reasonable to group colorectal cancer into right-sided (i.e., proximal) and leftsided (i.e., distal) ones.
AB - Background: It has been suggested that colorectal cancer be regarded as several subgroups defined according to tumor location rather than as a single entity. The current study aimed to identify the most useful method for grouping colorectal cancer by tumor location according to both baseline and survival characteristics. Methods: Cases of pathologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed from 2000 to 2012 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and categorized into three groups: right colon cancer (RCC), left colon cancer (LCC), and rectal cancer (ReC). Adjusted hazard ratios for known predictors of disease-specific survival (DSS) in colorectal cancer were obtained using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: The study included 57847 patients: 43.5% with RCC, 37.7% with LCC, and 18.8% with ReC. Compared with LCC and ReC, RCC was more likely to affect old patients and women, and to be at advanced stage, poorly differentiated or un-differentiated, and mucinous. Patients with LCC or ReC had better DSS than those with RCC in subgroups including stage III or IV disease, age ≤70 years and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma. Conversely, patients with LCC or ReC had worse DSS than those with RCC in subgroups including age >70 years and mucinous adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: RCC differed from both LCC and ReC in several clinicopathologic characteristics and in DSS. It seems reasonable to group colorectal cancer into right-sided (i.e., proximal) and leftsided (i.e., distal) ones.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85006049851
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0167540
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0167540
M3 - 文章
C2 - 27936129
AN - SCOPUS:85006049851
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 11
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 12
M1 - e0167540
ER -