Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2016) 108(1): djv325 doi:10.1093/jnci/djv325 First published online October 12, 2015 Editorial editorial Rectal Cancer: Age Matters in the Affairs of Stage Joanne Ngeow, Charis Eng Affiliations of authors: Cancer Genetics Service, Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore (JN); Oncology Academic Clinical Program, DukeNUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore (JN); Genomic Medicine Institute (JN, CE) and Taussig Cancer Institute (CE), Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences and Germline High Risk Focus Group, CASE Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (CE). Correspondence to: Charis Eng, MD, PhD, Genomic Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, NE-50, Cleveland, OH 44195 (e-mail: [email protected]). “Aging is not lost youth but a new stage of opportunity and strength.” –Betty Friedan The American Cancer Society estimates that 132 700 new colorectal (CRC) cases will be seen in 2015 (1), making CRC one of the top three most common cancers in the United States as well as a major health burden worldwide. It is encouraging that in the United States CRC incidence rates appear to be leveling off, even declining in recent years (2). This decline is largely attributed to the success of colonoscopic screening in patients over the age of 50 years. It allows for the early detection and removal of colorectal polyps before they progress to cancer and is the mainstay of CRC prevention efforts. However, recent literature suggests a worrisome trend of rising incidence of CRC in young individuals (3–6), a population that is not included in current population screening guidelines. These observations have important public health implications, but these studies suffer from a lack of uniformity in defining young CRC with studies including patients under the age of 40 or 50 years, with the majority of these studies being done at single centers, making it difficult for policy makers to fully appreciate the public health implications. The heterogeneity in studies has led to conflicting results as to what clinicopathological features are prognostic in young CRC patients, if any. It is in this context that the article by Meyer et al. in this issue of the Journal is timely (7). The authors used the population-based data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute to compare clinicopathological characteristics among patients with young rectal cancer (defined as age <50 years) diagnosed between 1988 and 2008. They included patients with stage I-III disease, without any history of prior radiotherapy and at least one lymph node examined with a standard rectal cancer operation, to help ensure that patients had received similar perioperative care. One in 10 patients included was under the age of 50 years, with 2.1% under the age of 40 years, and 7.5% age 40 to 49 years. The approximately 10% incidence of young rectal cancers is consistent with that of other studies (8). Adjusting for factors such as number of lymph nodes harvested and other clinicopathological factors, the authors found age to be statistically significantly predictive of lymph node positivity (LN+). For each T stage, LN+ was inversely associated with age. Intriguingly, for patients under the age of 40 years compared with patients age 60 to 69 years (the majority of cases), they were 2-fold, 1.5fold, and 1.3-fold more likely to be LN+ for T1, T2, and T3 disease, respectively. A study using population-based data such as the SEER database is limited by available clinical data. As the authors acknowledged, it is not known how these patients came to diagnosis—were they discovered on diagnostic or screening evaluations? Older patients are far more likely to have their rectal cancers detected presymptomatically as part of screening, and there are studies to suggest their doctors are also less likely to ignore early symptoms compared with the young. Although the authors account for this by stratifying by T stage, reporting that age is predictive of LN+ status regardless of T stage, it remains unclear how late presentation in younger patients could affect these results, except to attribute to different underlying biology. Regardless of these limitations, the results of this study have significant clinical implications. Given the higher propensity amongst young rectal cancer patients to be occult LN+ even for T1 disease, this will need to be taken into account for choice of surgical intervention. Although preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is recommended for the management of resectable rectal cancer, it is not uniformly practiced and the results here give further impetus for this to be standard of care in fit young rectal cancer patients. Given the results from this article and others, there is certainly a growing consensus that “young CRC” is a clinical entity in need of both research and health policy attention. To aid future research into this area, it will be important that future studies address this issue by first addressing what uniform definitions we will use. Amongst the definitions to be defined, what age should be considered the threshold for “young CRC”? A review of studies Received: October 4, 2015; Accepted: October 7, 2015 © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]. 1 of 2 J. Ngeow et al. | 2 of 2 up to 2003 revealed that approximately 70% of references defined ‘‘young’’ as patients younger than age 40 years (9), but this trend appears to be reversing with increasing numbers of studies using younger than age 50 years (10), which is the cutoff used by the Amsterdam criteria for identifying patients who may be at risk of Lynch Syndrome (LS). In another recently published study, and an important one, the authors using SEER data divided patients into three age groups to better understand what cutoffs would be useful. They grouped the case patients as age 21 to 40, age 41 to 50, and older than age 50 years (11). In this study, they included all CRC patients and found that patients with CRC diagnosed at age 21 to 40 years had later stage presentation and more aggressive pathological features but better survival. CRC patients age 41 to 50 years had the best CRC survival, in contrast to patients in the other two age groups. What this study highlights is that there is certainly heterogeneity in CRC patients under the age of 50 years and perhaps future CRC studies would need to look at the three groups separately rather than as a single cutoff. Is “young CRC” a good catchall for both young rectal and young colon-only cancers? Should we consider them similarly with regards to biology and management? As the authors highlight, we do not yet understand the molecular differences between CRCs seen in young vs elderly patients and between “young rectal” vs “young colon” cancers. Important host-environment factors remain to be interrogated and understood, including the interaction of host genetics with innate immunity, the tumor and its microenvironment, and the gut microbiome, in disease initiation and progression. What we do know is that approximately 5% of all CRCs are due to a heritable cause. Indeed, LS accounts for approximately 3% of all incident cases of CRC. Almost certainly, part of the 10% “young CRC” in this study have an inherited cancer syndrome. What of the rest? It is important that all these patients also be assessed for cancer predisposition syndromes. For LS, universal testing of the molecular phenotype of mismatch gene repair deficiency through either microstatellite instability or immunohistochemistry has been shown to be a cost-effective screening tool for detection of LS (12–14). For the other hereditary CRC syndromes, it remains challenging, and clinicians will need to pay particular attention to family history as well as detailed personal history for all CRC patients under the age of 50 years to identify who might require referral for genetic risk assessment (15). A recent study found a high prevalence of hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes in patients under the age of 35 years and recommend that any CRC patient age 35 years or younger receive genetic testing in the setting of genetic counseling (16). Of the 193 patients with evaluable data, 35% had an identifiable hereditary cancer syndrome, including 23 with Lynch Syndrome, 22 with mutationnegative Lynch Syndrome, 16 with familial adenomatous polyposis, two with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency, two with biallelic MUTYH mutations, and one with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. While knowing the index case’s mutation will allow family members to undergo predictive testing such that only those affected need receive increased surveillance starting at an early age, unfortunately, the majority of young CRC patients do not have a family history (17). An absence of family history therefore does not preclude early onset CRC in an individual, nor does it exclude de novo occurrence of heritable cancer. This underscores the need for further research to better understand the etiology of early-onset CRC. Apart from LS and the other hereditary CRC syndromes, we have, at present, no other means of rapidly identifying those at increased genetic risk, which leads to the last question. How should we best screen these patients without adding substantial burden to the healthcare system? In this era of value-based healthcare in the era of genomic medicine, the answer may lie in using molecular multitarget DNAbased stool screening to first identify that subset that requires colonoscopy (18). “Age is opportunity no less, Than youth itself, though in another dress, And as the evening twilight fades away, The sky is filled with stars, invisible by day.” -- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Morituri Salutamus, 1875 Notes Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: CE is a member of the Strategic Advisory Board of N-of-One. Otherwise, no author had any financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence or bias this work. JN was awarded the NMRC (Singapore) Transition Award. CE is the Sondra J. and Stephen R. Hardis Chair of Cancer Genomic Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and is an American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor. References 1. American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Key Statistics. http://www.cancer. org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-keystatistics. Accessed September 25, 2015. 2. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer. 2010;116(3):544–573. 3. Ahnen DJ, Wade SW, Jones WF, et al. The increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer: a call to action. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(2):216–224. 4. Merrill RM, Anderson AE. Risk-adjusted colon and rectal cancer incidence rates in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(10):1301–1306. 5. Siegel RL, Jemal A, Ward EM. Increase in incidence of colorectal cancer among young men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(6):1695–1698. 6. Bailey CE, Hu CY, You YN, et al. Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975–2010. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):17–22. 7. Meyer J, Cohen SJ, Ruth KJ, et al. Young age increases risk of lymph node positivity in early stage rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(1):djv284 doi:10.1093/jnci/djv284. 8. Yeo SA, Chew MH, Koh PK, et al. Young colorectal carcinoma patients do not have a poorer prognosis: a comparative review of 2,426 cases. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17(6):653–661. 9. O’Connell JB, Maggard MA, Livingston EH, et al. Colorectal cancer in the young. Am J Surg. 2004;187(3):343–348. 10. Inra JA, Syngal S. Colorectal cancer in young adults. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(3):722– 733. 11. Wang R, Wang MJ, Ping J. Clinicopathological Features and Survival Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer in Young Versus Elderly: A Population-Based Cohort Study of SEER 9 Registries Data (1988–2011). Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(35):e1402. 12.Grosse SD, Palomaki GE, Mvundura M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of routine testing for Lynch syndrome in newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer in the United States: corrected estimates. Genet Med. 2015;17(6):510–511. 13. Heald B, Plesec T, Liu X, et al. Implementation of universal microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry screening for diagnosing lynch syndrome in a large academic medical center. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(10):1336– 1340. 14. Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, et al. Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):69–79. 15. Hampel H, Bennett RL, Buchanan A, et al. A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet Med. 2015;17(1):70–87. 16. Mork ME, You YN, Ying J, et al. High Prevalence of Hereditary Cancer Syndromes in Adolescents and Young Adults With Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; In press. 17. Myers EA, Feingold DL, Forde KA, et al. Colorectal cancer in patients under 50 years of age: a retrospective analysis of two institutions’ experience. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(34):5651–5657. 18. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1287–1297.