Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to investigate the impact of tumor size on survival in early-onset colon and rectal cancer.
Methods
Early-onset colon and rectal cancer patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2015. Tumor size was analyzed as both continuous and categorical variables. Several statistical techniques, including restricted cubic spline (RCS), Cox proportional hazard model, subgroup analysis, propensity score matching (PSM), and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, were employed to demonstrate the association between tumor size and overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of early-onset colon and rectal cancer.
Results
Seventeen thousand five hundred fifty-one (76.7%) early-onset colon and 5323 (23.3%) rectal cancer patients were included. RCS analysis confirmed a linear association between tumor size and survival. Patients with a tumor size > 5 cm had worse OS and CSS, compared to those with a tumor size ≤ 5 cm for both early-onset colon and rectal cancer. Notably, subgroup analysis showed that a smaller tumor size (≤ 50 mm) was associated with worse survival in stage II early-onset colon cancer, although not statistically significant. After PSM, Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that the survival of patients with tumor size ≤ 50 mm was better than that of patients with tumor size > 50 mm.
Conclusion
Patients with tumors larger than 5 cm were associated with worse survival in early-onset colon and rectal cancer. However, smaller tumor size may indicate a more biologically aggressive phenotype, correlating with poorer survival in stage II early-onset colon cancer.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health concern that is the second most deadly and third most common cancer worldwide [1]. Early-onset CRC, defined as CRC diagnosed in individuals < 50 years of age, has been on a concerning rise globally in the past decades [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Clinical features of early-onset CRC differ from those of later-onset disease [4, 10]. A deeper understanding of characteristics in early-onset CRC is highly warranted.
Recent studies have begun to shed light on the unique genetic, clinicopathological, and molecular characteristics of early-onset CRC compared to its later-onset counterpart. These studies have unveiled differences in genetic mutations [11,12,13,14], lifestyle factors [15,16,17], gut microbiome [18]. Despite this growing body of research, there remains a significant gap in our understanding of how tumor size affects survival outcomes in young patients with CRC. Although tumor size has been recognized as a prognostic factor for CRC, the results were inconsistent [19,20,21,22,23]. To the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated the impact of tumor size on survival outcomes in early-onset CRC.
This study aimed to bridge this knowledge gap by examining the impact of tumor size on the survival of patients with early-onset CRC. We hypothesize that tumor size may have a distinctive role in the prognosis of these patients, potentially influencing treatment decisions and survival outcomes differently than in older populations. Through a comprehensive analysis of clinical data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, this study seeks to provide new insights into the prognostic significance of tumor size in early-onset CRC, thereby contributing to more tailored and effective treatment strategies and improving survival outcomes and quality of life for this unique patient demographic.
Materials and methods
Study design and participants
This was a retrospective cohort study. We used SEER*Stat 8.4.1 software and selected “Incidence - SEER Research Plus Data, 18 Registries, Nov 2020 Sub (2000–2018)” as the database. The clinicopathological data of patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC between 2004 and 2015 were extracted from the abovementioned database. Primary tumor sites (C18.0, C18.2–18.7, C19.9, and C20.9) included the colon (cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure of colon, and transverse colon, splenic flexure of colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectosigmoid junction), and rectum. In addition, the histologic subtypes included adenocarcinoma (8140/3, 8144/3, 8201/3, 8210/3, 8211/3, 8213/3, 8220/3, 8221/3, 8255/3, 8260/3, 8261/3, 8262/3, 8263/3, 8310/3, 8323/3), mucinous adenocarcinoma (MA) (8480/3, 8481/3), and signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) (8490/3). Cases were coded according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition.
The inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC (pathologically confirmed) between 2004 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients whose tumor size was 0, unknown, or larger than 200 mm; patients who did not undergo surgery; patients with a loss of vital clinical and survival information; and patients younger than 18 years old.
This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) reporting guidelines [24].
Study variables
The collected variables included age, sex, race, tumor size, histologic subtypes, grade, stage, chemotherapy, survival time, cause of death, and vital status records. The endpoint of this study was overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). In the SEER database, patients between 2004 and 2010 were classified with the sixth American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification, and patients between 2010 and 2015 were classified with both the sixth and seventh classification. Thus, to unify the criteria, all patients were classified according to the sixth AJCC classification. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause or the last follow-up. CSS was defined as the time interval between cancer diagnosis and death from colorectal cancer or the last follow-up.
Statistical analysis
Colon cancer is studied separately from rectal cancer. X-tile software [25] (version 3.6.1, Yale University School of Medicine) was used to determine the optimal cut-off points for age. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. OS and CSS were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves and compared using log-rank tests.
Potential nonlinear associations between tumor size and outcomes were examined using restricted cubic spline (RCS) [26] with 4 knots. Covariates included in the analysis were age, sex, race, histologic subtypes, grade, stage, and chemotherapy.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). To fully assess the relationship between tumor size and outcomes, tumor size was analyzed as both continuous and categorical variables (two, three, and four categories). Cut-off values for tumor size were determined based on professional experience and X-tile software.
Additionally, based on 3 models, the P values for linear trends were calculated using the quartile values as an ordinal variable. Model 1 was unadjusted; Model 2 was adjusted for age, sex, and race; Model 3 was further adjusted for histologic subtypes, grade, stage, and chemotherapy.
To assess the consistency of the impact of tumor size on outcomes, subgroup analysis was performed according to the above-mentioned covariates. Moreover, likelihood ratio tests were used to examine interaction [27].
To reduce the impact of baseline differences on the outcomes, a sensitivity analysis was carried out using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) [28]. The balance in covariates was assessed by using the standardized mean difference (SMD) approach. SMD of 10% or less was considered to be adequate balance. After PSM, OS and CSS were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank tests.
R software (version 4.3.1; http://www.r-project.org) was used for statistical analyses. Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance.
Results
Characteristics of the participants
Overall, 33,356 patients with early-onset colon and rectal cancer were identified between 2004 and 2015 from the SEER database. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 17,551 (76.7%) colon and 5323 (23.3%) rectal cancer patients were included. The study screening flow chart is shown in Fig. 1. The demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of early-onset colon and rectal cancer patients are summarized in Table 1.
Kaplan–Meier survival analysis
The 3-, 5‐, and 10‐year OS rates were 78.0%, 69.1%, and 60.7%, respectively, and the 3‐, 5‐, and 10‐year CSS rates were 79.3%, 71.0%, and 63.9%, respectively for early-onset colon cancer. The 3‐, 5‐, and 10‐year OS rates were 85.7%, 75.7%, and 65.2%, respectively, and the 3‐, 5‐, and 10‐year CSS rates were 86.8%, 77.3%, and 67.9%, respectively for early-onset rectal cancer. The OS and CSS in patients with tumor size ≤ 50 mm were better compared with those with tumor size > 50 mm (Fig. 2).
Potential nonlinear associations between tumor size and survival
The RCS revealed that the risk of OS and CSS increased linearly with increasing tumor size. (Fig. 3).
Prognostic impact of tumor size on OS and CSS
Tumor size had a negative impact on OS and CSS in both the unadjusted model and the fully adjusted model, regardless of whether it was analyzed as a continuous or categorical variable (Table 2).
Linear trend analysis
When tumor size was categorized based on quartiles, it still negatively impacted OS and CSS. Additionally, P-values for linear trend were significant in all 3 models for early-onset colon cancer, and significant in Model 1 and Model 2 for early-onset rectal cancer (Table 3).
Subgroup analysis
The results of subgroup analysis of OS and CSS in early-onset rectal cancer were consistent (Supplementary Figs. S1 and S2). Particularly notable was the distinct survival advantage observed with larger tumors in Stage II early-onset colon cancer, contrasting with other stages. Although the HRs for Stage I, III, and IV were greater than 1, Stage II presented an HR less than 1 (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82–1.10), suggesting a unique trend where larger tumor sizes in this stage were associated with better OS compared to smaller tumors (Fig. 4). Similar results were observed in subgroup analysis for CSS (Fig. 5).
Propensity score matching
Before PSM, there was a significant imbalance in baseline characteristics. After PSM, no statistically significant differences remained in the covariates (all SMDs < 0.1) for OS and CSS analysis in both early-onset colon (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2) and rectal cancer (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). After matching, Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that the prognosis of patients with tumor size ≤ 50 mm was better than that of patients with tumor size > 50 mm (Fig. 6).
Discussion
Based on the SEER database, 22,874 participants with early-onset colon and rectal cancer were included. Our study revealed that larger tumor size (as both continuous and categorical variables), significantly correlated with worse OS and CSS in early-onset colon and rectal cancer patients. Notably, smaller tumor size was associated with worse survival in stage II early-onset colon cancer (adjusted HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82–1.10, and adjusted HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80–1.13 for OS and CSS, respectively), suggesting that smaller tumors may reflect a more biologically aggressive phenotype for patients with stage II early-onset colon cancer.
In accordance with our findings, some studies have revealed that patients with larger tumors had a decreased survival compared with those with smaller tumors in CRC no matter with [20, 29, 30] or without [31] metastasis. However, there were also studies with different opinions. Hajibandeh et al. evaluated the predictive significance of tumor size in 192 CRC patients undergoing curative surgery [21]. They found that tumor size on its own may not have a significant prognostic value in OS. Their study was limited by the small sample size. In addition, Shiraishi et al. performed a retrospective study of 95 patients with pT4 CRC and demonstrated that tumor size ≥ 50 mm was associated with a better CSS than that of < 50 mm [23]. This contrasting view should be interpreted with caution because only 95 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, we still believe that larger tumor size is associated with worse survival outcomes for CRC.
It should be noted that an interesting result was observed after subgroup analysis. Surprisingly, we identified that tumor size > 50 mm was associated with a better OS and CSS than that of ≤ 50 mm for patients with stage II colon cancer; however, this was not statistically significant. This finding contrasted with other stages and highlighted the nuanced impact of tumor size on survival, depending on the stage of the disease. After a thorough literature search, we found that previous studies have revealed this seemingly paradoxical finding [23, 32,33,34,35,36,37]. For example, Huang et al. analysed 7719 patients with stage II colon cancer from the SEER database and indicated that patients with smaller tumors were associated with decreased CSS compared with those with larger tumors [32]. This was extremely similar to what we reported here. It was speculated that smaller tumors with heavy intestinal wall invasion may represent a biologically aggressive phenotype, whereas larger tumors may reflect a biologically indolent phenotype in stage II CRC. This distinct growth pattern may be caused by inter-tumor heterogeneity of CRC that results from various genetic and epigenetic factors. More studies are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanism.
There are several strengths to our study. In addition to the large sample size, the main strength of our study was the multiple rigorous statistical methods. First, colon cancer is studied separately from rectal cancer due to their different biological behaviors. Second, potential nonlinear associations between tumor size and outcomes (OS and CSS) were evaluated using RCS. Third, to correct for potential confounding factors, univariable and multivariable Cox regression were used. Additionally, PSM analysis was also performed as a sensitivity analysis. Therefore, the findings of our study were robust. Fourth, tumor size was analyzed as both continuous and categorical variables. Moreover, when it was analysed as a categorical variable, different numbers of categories (two, three, and four categories) and cut-off values were used. Thus, the results were reliable. Fifth, both OS and CSS were evaluated as survival outcomes. Last, subgroup analyses were conducted and a special population was identified (stage II early-onset colon cancer).
However, when interpreting the results of the present study, several limitations should be considered. First, the retrospective nature of the study limited the generalizability of the results. Prospective studies are needed in the future. Second, besides genetics and epigenetics data, microsatellite instability status, comorbidities, intestinal obstruction or penetration, and detailed information on CEA, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were not included in the SEER database. Third, there is still a possibility of residual confounding, despite adjusting for potential confounders. Fourth, only the US population were included in the SEER database, possibly resulting in a degree of selection bias. The results of the present study might be unsuitable for patients in other countries, suggesting that a large-scale multicenter global study is necessary. Fifth, only patients who had undergone surgical resection were included in this study. Therefore, our results may not apply to patients without surgical resection.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large study to reveal the association between tumor size and survival outcomes in early-onset colon and rectal cancer. Our study highlights that tumor size is an important risk factor for OS and CSS in early-onset colon and rectal cancer. More prospective multicenter studies are needed to validate the association between tumor size and survival in stage II early-onset colon cancer, especially stratified by microsatellite instability status. Further studies should also be undertaken to elucidate the underlying genetic and molecular mechanisms of the impact of tumor size on the survival of early-onset colon and rectal cancer.
Conclusions
This study found that patients with larger tumors experienced worse OS and CSS compared to those with smaller tumors in early-onset colon and rectal cancer. Notably, smaller tumors may reflect a more biologically aggressive phenotype and be associated with worse survival in stage II early-onset colon cancer. More studies are warranted to verify our findings and elucidate the underlying mechanisms.
Data availability
The data sets analyzed in this study are available in the SEER database (https://seer.Cancer.gov/).
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
Patel SG, Karlitz JJ, Yen T et al (2022) The rising tide of early-onset colorectal cancer: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, clinical features, biology, risk factors, prevention, and early detection. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:262–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00426-X
Shah RR, Millien VO, Costa WL et al (2022) Trends in the incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer in all 50 United States from 2001 through 2017. Cancer 128:299–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33916
Sinicrope FA (2022) Increasing incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 386:1547–1558. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2200869
Ugai T, Sasamoto N, Lee H-Y et al (2022) Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic? Current evidence and future implications. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 19:656–673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00672-8
Ben-Aharon I, van Laarhoven HWM, Fontana E et al (2023) Early-onset cancer in the gastrointestinal tract is on the rise-evidence and implications. Cancer Discov 13:538–551. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-22-1038
Giannakis M, Ng K (2023) A common cancer at an uncommon age. Science 379:1088–1090. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade7114
Siegel RL, Wagle NS, Cercek A et al (2023) Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 73:233–254. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21772
Spaander MCW, Zauber AG, Syngal S et al (2023) Young-onset colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primer 9:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-023-00432-7
REACCT Collaborative, Zaborowski AM, Abdile A et al (2021) Characteristics of early-onset vs late-onset colorectal cancer: a review. JAMA Surg 156:865–874. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.2380
Nakamura K, Hernández G, Sharma GG et al (2022) A liquid biopsy signature for the detection of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 163:1242–1251e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.089
Shen X, DeWan AT, Johnson CH (2023) Early-onset colorectal cancer somatic gene mutations by population subgroups. Cancer Discov 13:530–531. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-22-1464
Seagle HM, Keller SR, Tavtigian SV et al (2023) Clinical multigene panel testing identifies racial and ethnic differences in germline pathogenic variants among patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 41:4279–4289. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02378
Holowatyj AN, Wen W, Gibbs T et al (2023) Racial/ethnic and sex differences in somatic cancer gene mutations among patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Cancer Discov 13:570–579. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-22-0764
Wang G, Liu Z (2023) Alcohol intake associated with increased risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 41:5328. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.01548
Li H, Boakye D, Chen X et al (2022) Associations of body mass index at different ages with early-onset colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 162:1088–1097e3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.239
O’Sullivan DE, Sutherland RL, Town S et al (2022) Risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:1229–1240e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.01.037
Kong C, Liang L, Liu G et al (2023) Integrated metagenomic and metabolomic analysis reveals distinct gut-microbiome-derived phenotypes in early-onset colorectal cancer. Gut 72:1129–1142. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327156
Balta AZ, Özdemir Y, Sücüllü İ et al (2014) Can horizontal diameter of colorectal tumor help predict prognosis? Ulus Cerrahi Derg 30:115–119. https://doi.org/10.5152/UCD.2014.2701
Kornprat P, Pollheimer MJ, Lindtner RA et al (2011) Value of tumor size as a prognostic variable in colorectal cancer: a critical reappraisal. Am J Clin Oncol 34:43–49. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e3181cae8dd
Hajibandeh S, Barghash M, Khan RMA et al (2022) Predictive significance of tumour size in patients undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.26656
Mejri N, Dridi M, El Benna H et al (2017) Prognostic value of tumor size in stage II and III colorectal cancer in Tunisian population. Colorectal Cancer 6:113–119. https://doi.org/10.2217/crc-2017-0011
Shiraishi T, Ogawa H, Katayama A et al (2022) Association of tumor size in pathological T4 colorectal cancer with desmoplastic reaction and prognosis. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 6:667–678. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12571
Mathew G, Agha R, Albrecht J et al (2021) STROCSS 2021: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int J Surg 96:106165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106165
Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm DL (2004) X-tile: a new bio-informatics tool for biomarker assessment and outcome-based cut-point optimization. Clin Cancer Res 10:7252–7259. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0713
Desquilbet L, Mariotti F (2010) Dose-response analyses using restricted cubic spline functions in public health research. Stat Med 29:1037–1057. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3841
Yates T, Summerfield A, Razieh C et al (2022) A population-based cohort study of obesity, ethnicity and COVID-19 mortality in 12.6 million adults in England. Nat Commun 13:624. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28248-1
Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46:399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
Zhang Q, Li B, Zhang S et al (2023) Prognostic impact of tumor size on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a large SEER-based retrospective cohort study. Updat Surg 75:1135–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01533-4
Yan Q, Zhang K, Guo K et al (2019) Value of tumor size as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients after chemotherapy: a population-based study. Future Oncol 15:1745–1758. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2018-0785
Dai W, Li Y, Meng X et al (2017) Does tumor size have its prognostic role in colorectal cancer? Re-evaluating its value in colorectal adenocarcinoma with different macroscopic growth pattern. Int J Surg 45:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.100
Huang B, Feng Y, Zhu L et al (2016) Smaller tumor size is associated with poor survival in stage II colon cancer: an analysis of 7,719 patients in the SEER database. Int J Surg 33:157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.073
Wang Y, Zhuo C, Shi D et al (2015) Unfavorable effect of small tumor size on cause-specific survival in stage IIA colon cancer, a SEER-based study. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-2056-y
Li X, An B, Ma J et al (2019) Prognostic value of the tumor size in resectable colorectal cancer with different primary locations: a retrospective study with the propensity score matching. J Cancer 10:313–322. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.26882
Muralidhar V, Nipp RD, Ryan DP et al (2016) Association between very small tumor size and increased cancer-specific mortality in node-positive colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 59:187–193. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000532
Huang B, Chen C, Ni M et al (2017) The association between small tumor size and poor survival in T4 mucinous adenocarcinoma of colon without distant metastasis. J Buon 22:170–177
Huang B, Feng Y, Mo S-B et al (2016) Smaller tumor size is associated with poor survival in T4b colon cancer. World J Gastroenterol 22:6726. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i29.6726
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the SEER program for approving the registration and to the SEER database.
Funding
This study was supported by the Tianjin Key Laboratory of Precise Vascular Reconstruction and Organ Function Repair.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Wanbin Yin and Maorun Zhang: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft; Zhe Ji: methodology, software, visualization, writing—review and editing; Xiaoping Li: data curation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing; Shiyao Zhang: data curation, validation, writing—review and editing; Gang Liu: conceptualization, funding acquisition, resources, supervision, writing—review and editing. The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Informed consent statement
Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
Institutional review board statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to using human tumor data that is publicly available and de-identified.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yin, W., Zhang, M., Ji, Z. et al. Impact of tumor size on overall survival and cancer-specific survival of early-onset colon and rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Colorectal Dis 39, 69 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04644-5
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04644-5