Advertisement

Clinical characteristics and prognosis of different primary tumor location in colorectal cancer: a population-based cohort study

  • C. Zheng
  • F. Jiang
  • H. Lin
  • S. LiEmail author
Open Access
Research Article
  • 160 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Emerging data have shown that patients with left-sided cancers have better survival than patients with right-sided cancers in terms of metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the available information and findings remain limited and contradictory in localized colorectal cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of primary tumor location (PTL) in colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patients’ diagnoses were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result database between 2006 and 2015. The analyses were further stipulated to patients with primary cancer site, histology, and stage information. The correlations between PTL and overall survival (OS) were assessed.

Results

Compared with left-sided tumors, right-sided tumors were more likely to develop into T3 cancers (50.0% vs. 44.8%), T4 cancers (15.8% vs. 12.3%), mucinous or mucin-producing adenocarcinoma (10.8% vs. 5.0%), and signet ring cell carcinoma (1.4% vs. 0.7%), P < 0.01, respectively. Patients with right-sided tumors showed inferior OS (56.1% vs. 60.2%), and the hazard ratio was 1.224 (95% CI, 1.208–1.241, P < 0.001) in all stages. Stage-specific Cox regression analysis revealed that patients with right-sided tumors also showed inferior OS in every stage (respectively, P < 0.05) than left-sided tumors.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the prognoses of patients with left-sided cancers were better than those of patients with right-sided cancers regardless of stage. PTL can be a prognosis factor in colorectal cancer. We encourage developing clinical and translational studies to elucidate the causative relationship between PTL and prognosis.

Keywords

Primary tumor location Colorectal cancer Prognosis Overall survival 

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important public health problem; it is the third commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death worldwide [1]. CRC is a significantly heterogeneous cancer on the basis of its histological type, grade, stage, and treatment response. Different genetic, etiological, environmental, microbiotic, and lifestyle factors lead to the heterogeneity of CRC [2] and influence its prognosis. Advancements in medical therapy have gradually improved the survival of patients. These advancements include the exploitation and utilization of new drugs, improved treatment, and discovery of predictive factors. Emerging studies have demonstrated that primary tumor location can serve as an important predictive factor, which might predict curative effects in metastatic CRC [3, 4]. The outcomes of patients with left-sided cancers are better than those of right-sided cancers in metastatic CRC [5, 6, 7, 8]. However, the available information and findings remain limited and contradictory in localized CRC [9, 10]. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of PTL in CRC.

Materials and methods

Study design and patient selection

This population-based cohort study analyzed the correlation between PTL and outcomes in CRC. The study data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), which covered 27.8% patients with cancer in the USA [11]. SEER*Stat version 8.3.5 was employed. We examined data from Incidence—SEER 18 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2017 Sub (2000–2015). The data were extracted and described according to data items and codes as documented by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) [12]. We extracted data for all cases of CRC between 2006 and 2015, which were coded according to THE year of diagnosis (NAACCR Item390). Primary cancer site and histology were coded using the criteria in the third edition of the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICDO-3) [13]. The patients who were diagnosed at autopsy or only by death certificate and without histologically confirmed cancer (NAACCR Items 490 and 2180) and with occurrence of another malignancy preceding CRC (NAACCR Item 380) were excluded. These analyses were further stipulated to patients with adenocarcinoma identified by the ICDO-3 histology codes 8140, 8144, 8210,8211, 8220, 8221,8255, 8260, 8261, 8262, and 8263; mucinous 8480; mucin-producing adenocarcinoma 8481; and signet ring cell carcinoma 8490 (NAACCR Item 522). These analyses were also stipulated to patients with clear stage (0, I, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IV) identified by the DERIVED AJCC-6 STAGE GRP (NAACCR Item 3000). Right-sided colon cancers included C18.0-cecum, C18.2-ascending colon, C18.3-hepatic flexure of colon, and C18.4-transverse colon. Left-sided CRCs included C18.5-splenic flexure of colon, C18.6-descending colon, C18.7-sigmoid colon, C19.9-rectosigmoid junction, and C20.9-rectum (NAACCR Items 522 and 523).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were carried out using SAS statistical software (SAS, version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc.). Chi-square test was used to evaluate proportions. Multivariable logistic analysis was conducted to analyze the correlation between every factor with overall survival (OS).The Cox regression model and Kaplan–Meier method were employed to analyze the correlation between PTL and OS. A two-sided p value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Study population

We identified a population-based sample of 311,239 patients diagnosed with CRC between 2006 and 2015. We excluded living patients without survival time information from OS analysis. Thus, 248,861 patients were retained in this cohort. The selection process for patients in the study is listed in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Selection process for patients in the cohort study

Population characteristics

The stage distribution was 3.8, 25.1, 25.8, 26.8, and 18.6% for stages 0, I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The characteristics of patients are listed in Table 1. This study comprised more patients with left-sided cancers than those with right-sided cancers [57.0% (177,444 of 311,239) vs. 43.0% (133,795 of 311,239)]. Females were more likely to present with right-sided cancers (53.3% [71,330 of 133,795] vs. 42.9% [76,182 of 177,444], P < 0.001) than left-sided cancers. Patients with right-sided tumors were older [≥ 75 years, 43.4% (58,027 of 133,795) vs. 25.9% (45,916 of 177,444), P < 0.001] than those with left-sided tumors. Compared with left-sided tumors, right-sided tumors were more likely to develop into T3 cancers [50.0% (66,877 of 133,795) vs. 44.8% (79,545 of 177,444), P < 0.001], T4 cancers [15.8% (21,084 of 133,795) vs. 12.3% (21,753 of 177,444), P < 0.001], mucinous or mucin-producing adenocarcinoma [10.8% (14,413 of 133,795) vs. 5.0% (8869 of 177,444), P < 0.001], and signet ring cell carcinoma [1.4% (1918 of 133,795) vs. 0.7% (1314 of 177,444), P < 0.001].
Table 1

Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with colorectal cancer between 2006 and 2015

Variable

All patients (N = 311,239)

Tumor location

Left (N = 177,444)

Right (N = 133,795)

P value

Sex, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 Male

163,727 (52.6)

101,262 (57.1)

62,465 (46.7)

 

 Female

147,512 (47.4)

76,182 (42.9)

71,330 (53.3)

 

Age, years, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 ≤ 44 years

16,432 (5.3)

11,995 (6.8)

4437 (3.3)

 

 45–59 years

75,976 (24.4)

53,512 (30.2)

22,464 (16.8)

 

 60–74 years

114,888 (36.9)

66,021 (37.2)

48,867 (36.5)

 

 ≥ 75 years

103,943 (33.4)

45,916 (25.9)

58,027 (43.4)

 

Marital status, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 Unmarried

164,833 (53.0)

96,583 (54.4)

68,250 (51.0)

 

 Married

129,553 (41.6)

70,651 (39.8)

58,902 (44.0)

 

 Unknown

16,853 (5.4)

10,210 (5.8)

6643 (5.0)

 

Race, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 White

246,763 (79.3)

139,135 (78.4)

107,628 (80.4)

 

 Black

36,141 (11.6)

18,935 (10.7)

17,206 (12.9)

 

 AI/A

2195 (0.7)

1369 (0.8)

826 (0.6)

 

 A/PI

24,495 (7.9)

16,809 (9.5)

7686 (5.7)

 

 Unknown

1645 (0.5)

1196 (0.7)

449 (0.3)

 

T, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 T0

98 (0.0)

80 (0.0)

18 (0.0)

 

 Tis

11,890 (3.8)

7983 (4.5)

3827 (2.9)

 

 T1

55,876 (18.0)

37,179 (21.0)

18,697 (14.0)

 

 T2

41,049 (13.2)

22,469 (12.7)

18,580 (13.9)

 

 T3

146,422 (47.0)

79,545 (44.8)

66,877 (50.0)

 

 T4

42,837 (13.8)

21,753 (12.3)

21,084 (15.8)

 

 Tx

13,147 (4.2)

8435 (4.8)

4712 (3.5)

 

N, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 N0

186,803 (60.0)

106,617 (60.1)

80,186 (59.9)

 

 N1

73,582 (23.6)

43,341 (24.4)

30,241 (22.6)

 

 N2

43,440 (14.0)

22,609 (12.7)

20,831 (15.6)

 

 NX

7414 (2.4)

4877 (2.7)

2537 (1.9)

 

M, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 M0

253,131 (81.3)

143,087 (80.6)

110,044 (82.2)

 

 M1

57,843 (18.6)

34,167 (19.3)

23,676 (17.7)

 

 MX

265 (0.1)

190 (0.1)

75 (0.1)

 

Stage, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 0

11,810 (3.8)

7983 (4.5)

3827 (2.9)

 

 I

78,036 (25.1)

47,234 (26.6)

30,802 (23.0)

 

 II

80,267 (25.8)

40,434 (22.8)

39,833 (29.8)

 

 III

83,283 (26.8)

47,626 (26.8)

35,657 (26.7)

 

 IV

57,843 (18.6)

34,167 (19.3)

23,676 (17.7)

 

Histology, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

Adenocarcinoma

284,725 (91.5)

167,261 (94.3)

117,464 (87.8)

 

 AM/MPA

23,282 (7.5)

8869 (5.0)

14,413 (10.8)

 

 SRCC

3232 (1.0)

1314 (0.7)

1918 (1.4)

 

Grade, no. (%)

   

< 0.001

 I

25,611 (8.2)

14,955 (8.4)

10,656 (8.0)

 

 II

201,082 (64.6)

117,591 (66.3)

83,491 (62.4)

 

 III

46,222 (14.9)

20,411 (11.5)

25,811 (19.3)

 

 IV

6550 (2.1)

2539 (1.4)

4011 (3.0)

 

 Unknown

31,774 (10.2)

21,948 (12.4)

9826 (7.3)

 

AI/A American Indian/Alaska native, AM/MPA adenocarcinoma mucinous or mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, A/PI Asian or Pacific Islander; SRCC indicates signet ring cell carcinoma. T, N, M tumor, node, and metastasis classification according to AJCC 6th

Factors correlated with survival

The factors correlated with 5-year survival are listed in Table 2. Multivariable analysis indicated that the following factors were correlated with inferior prognosis (OS): male, old age (≥ 75 years), unmarried status, histopathology grades 3 and 4, mucinous adenocarcinoma, mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, stages III and IV, and right-sided tumor.
Table 2

Factors correlated with five-year overall survival among 248,861 patients with colorectal cancer

Covariate

Total no.

OS rate (%)

Multivariable analysis

Hazard ratio (95% CI)

P value

Sex

 Male

130,934

57.5

1 [Reference]

 

 Female

117,927

58.7

0.952 (0.937–0.967)

< 0.001

Age, years

 ≤ 44 years

15,306

65.8

1 [Reference]

 

 45–59 years

68,210

67.8

0.914 (0.881–0.948)

< 0.001

 60–74 years

92,659

62.7

1.145 (1.104–1.186)

< 0.001

 ≥ 75 years

72,686

42.2

2.635 (2.541–2.733)

< 0.001

Marital status

 Married

132,569

63.7

1 [Reference]

 

 Unmarried

103,050

50.2

1.741 (1.712–1.770)

< 0.001

 Unknown

13,242

62.9

1.035 (0.997–1.074)

.068

Stage

 0

8930

80.2

1 [Reference]

 

 I

59,442

77.9

1.149 (1.087–1.215)

< 0.001

 II

63,647

68.9

1.828 (1.731–1.931)

< 0.001

 III

68,555

60.2

2.678 (2.537–2.827)

< 0.001

 IV

48,287

11.3

31.795 (29.968–33.733)

< 0.001

Histology

 Adenocarcinoma

228,381

58.9

1 [Reference]

 

 AM/MPA

17,989

52.1

1.318 (1.278–1.358)

< 0.001

 SRCC

2491

27.7

3.740 (3.425–4.085)

< 0.001

Grade

 I

20,358

70.0

1 [Reference]

 

 II

161,834

61.3

1.473 (1.427–1.520)

< 0.001

 III

36,654

44.8

2.875 (2.772–2.981)

< 0.001

 IV

5107

45.0

2.852 (2.678–3.037)

< 0.001

 Unknown

24,908

49.9

2.343 (2.253–2.436)

< 0.001

Site

 Left

145,885

60.2

1 [Reference]

 

 Right

102,976

55.1

1.233 (1.213–1.253)

< 0.001

AM/MPA adenocarcinoma mucinous or mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, SRCC signet ring cell carcinoma

Exploratory analyses of the associations between PTL and survival

We performed exploratory analyses to identify the association between PTL and the OS of the patients with CRC. The patients of all stages (stages 0–IV) were merged in analysis to identify the prognostic relevance of PTL. The PTL was correlated with prognosis. Cox regression analysis revealed that patients with right-sided tumors showed inferior OS (56.1% vs. 60.2%), and the hazard ratio was 1.224 (95% CI, 1.208–1.241, P < 0.001) in stages 0–IV. The Kaplan–Meier analysis results listed in Fig. 2 also indicated that the patients with right-sided tumors had inferior OS. We further analyzed the correlation between PTL and the OS in every stage. Stage-specific Cox regression analysis revealed that patients with right-sided cancers had inferior OS in every stage (Table 3). Patients with stage III showed the greatest difference between the left-sided and right-sided cancers in OS (64.4% vs. 54.0%, P < 0.001) than patients with other stages.
Fig. 2

Patients with left-sided tumors had better 5-year overall survival (60.2% vs. 55.2%, P < 0.001) compared with right-sided tumors in stage 0–IV

Table 3

Primary tumor location correlated with 5-year overall survival among 248,861 patients with colorectal cancer

Stage

Primary tumor location

Left

Right

Cox regression

Total no.

OS (%)

Total no.

OS (%)

Right vs. left, HR (95) CI %

P value

0–IV

145,885

60.2

102,976

55.1

1.224 (1.208–1.241)

< 0.001

0

6220

81.7

2710

76.7

1.306 (1.171–1.457)

< 0.001

I

37,166

79.6

22,276

75.2

1.269 (1.220–1.319)

< 0.001

II

32,899

69.3

30,748

68.5

1.042 (1.009–1.075)

.011

III

40,592

64.4

27,963

54.0

1.501 (1.461–1.542)

< 0.001

IV

29,008

13.0

19,279

8.7

1.356 (1.328–1.385)

< 0.001

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated the clinical characteristics and prognostic relevance of PTL in CRC. We further confirmed through historical data that patients with right-sided cancers were more likely to be old, female and mucinous adenocarcinoma or signet ring cell histology than those with left-sided cancers [14, 15, 16]. Our data were consistent with the growing body of evidence showing that those with left-sided cancers have better prognosis than patients with right-sided cancers among patients with metastatic CRC (stage IV) [5, 6, 7, 8]. Our analysis further showed that patients with left-sided cancers exhibited better prognosis than patients with right-sided cancers in all stages (including localized CRC). When grouped based on tumor stage, all patients with left-sided cancers showed significantly better prognosis than those with right-sided cancers regardless of stage. This difference was not apparent between patients with metastatic CRC and those with localized CRC. However, the reason for the different survival rates of patients with different PTL in CRC remains unclear. We speculate that differences in embryological origin and detection time may contribute to this discrepancy. The embryological junction between the midgut and hindgut leads to a potential watershed area in the area of the splenic flexure, and it is supplied by the superior and inferior mesenteric arteries. The rectum also arises from the hindgut and the blood supply from the inferior mesenteric artery. So, we included it in the left half colon analysis. Due to the larger diameter of the right-sided colon tube, all patients with right-sided cancers had later onset of clinical symptoms, such as abdominal pain and intestinal obstruction. Right-sided tumors were more likely to develop into advanced cancers (stage III and IV). After controlling for tumor stage and histology, the patients’ prognosis in left-sided cancers remained better than those of right-sided cancers. This result also suggested that the difference in prognosis between the two groups may be related to genetic and environmental factors. Right-sided cancers are more likely to involve genome-wide hypermethylation and hypermutations than left-sided cancers [17, 18, 19, 20]. Gene analyses elucidated four biological consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) in CRC [21]. Notably, the differential CMSs were distributed between the left-sided and right-sided cancers, and “microsatellite unstable/immune” CMS1 and “metabolic” CMS3 were more prevalent in right-sided cancers than in left-sided cancers [21]. The different PTLs also exhibited varied microbiota and histories of exposure to potential carcinogenic toxins [22, 23]. In stage IV, patients with left-sided cancers have a higher rate of liver metastases and lung metastases was found when compared with those of right-sided cancers, whereas patients with right-sided cancers were associated with a higher rate of peritoneal metastases and metastases at other sites [24]. In fact, several recent studies have exhibited that PTL may be prognostic and predictive of the response to antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy in mCRC. Trials using cetuximab as an anti-EGFR therapy, including CRYSTAL and FIRE-3, showed that the prognosis of patients with left-sided cancers were superior to those of patients with right-sided cancers [25]. In terms of treatment, compared to right-sided cancers, some patients with rectal cancers received preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy. Some studies demonstrated that those treatments could improve local control [26, 27, 28, 29]. However, those studies also demonstrated that OS were not improved [27, 28, 29, 30]. It might not affect the results (OS) of our study that the rectum was incorporated into the left colon for analysis. In addition, it might affect the OS that patients with right-sided tumors were older than those with left-sided tumors. Therefore, the clinical characteristics and prognostic mechanisms of different sites of colorectal cancer require further study, especially on locational cancers. Our results also differed from other study [10]. Such different results might be due to the different definitions for right- and left-sided cancers. Cancers located from the rectum to the splenic flexure colon are commonly defined as left-sided cancers, whereas those from the splenic flexure colon to the cecum are defined as right-sided cancers [8, 17, 31, 32]. By contrast, others employed different definitions of left-sided cancers, which only included the descending and sigmoid colon cancers, and right-sided cancers, which only included the cecum and ascending colon cancers; moreover, they excluded patients with cancers in other colorectal locations [10]. Our study was based on the former definition. Such different definitions may explain the inconsistency between the results of the two studies.

Limitations and strengths

To our knowledge, our study is the largest work to analyze the influence of PTL on the prognoses of patients with CRC in all stage. However, the study had some limitations. Data on treatments, family history, performance status, and molecular features were unavailable in the SEER database. Despite these limitations, the present study had some strengths. First, the population-based nature of the registry is associated with a high degree of generalizability. Second, our study reported data over a 10-year period and included over 311,000 patients with CRC. The large sample size was also associated with a high degree of power. Third, we used different analysis measures to prove the results of this study.

Conclusions

This study revealed the clinical characteristics and prognostic value of PTL in patients with CRC. The OS of patients with left-sided cancers was better than that of patients with right-sided cancers regardless of stage. We strongly recommend regarding PTL as a stratification factor in future studies. We encourage developing clinical and translational studies to elucidate the causative relationship between PTL and prognosis, and developing strategies for the prevention measures and clinical management of CRC by stratifying on the basis of PTL.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the colleagues of Wenzhou medical university colorectal cancer center for formal analysis, methodology and software and technique support.

Author contributions

SL had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; final approval of the version to be published. CZ performed acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data and obtained funding. FJ offered technical and material support. HL performed statistical analysis.

Funding

This work was supported by the funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81704076).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

As the data used was from SEER dataset (public), Ethics approval and consent to participate could be checked in SEER.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):359–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aran V, Victorino AP, Thuler LC, Ferreira CG. Colorectal cancer: epidemiology, disease mechanisms and interventions to reduce onset and mortality. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(3):195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee GH, Malietzis G, Askari A, Bernardo D, Al-Hassi HO, Clark SK. Is right sided colon cancer different to left-sided colorectal cancer? A systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(3):300–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yahagi M, Okabayashi K, Hasegawa H, Tsuruta M, Kitagawa Y. The worse prognosis of right-sided compared with left-sided colon cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(3):648–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loupakis F, Yang D, Yau L, Feng S, Cremolini C, Zhang W, et al. Primary tumor location as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(9):djv203.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Snyder M, Bottiglieri S, Almhanna K. Impact of primary tumor location on first-line bevacizumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2018;13(2):139–49.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1574887113666180328104109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holch JW, Ricard I, Stintzing S, Modest DP, Heinemann V. The relevance of primary tumour location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 2017;70:87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petrelli F, Tomasello G, Borgonovo K, Ghidini M, Turati L, Dallera P, et al. Prognostic survival associated with left-sided vs right-sided colon cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:211–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karim S, Brennan K, Nanji S, Berry SR, Booth CM. Association between prognosis and tumor laterality in early-stage colon cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1386–92.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warschkow Rene, Sulz Michael C, Marti Lukas, Tarantino Ignazio, Schmied Bruno M, Cerny Thomas, et al. Better survival in right-sided versus left-sided stage I–III colon cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:554.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2412-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program (2014) Research Data (1973–2011), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, April 2014, https://seer.cancer.gov/. Accessed 12 May 2018.
  12. 12.
    Wingo PA, Jamison PM, Hiatt RA, Weir HK, Gargiullo PM, Hutton M, et al. Building the infrastructure for nationwide cancer surveillance and control—a comparison between The National Program of Cancer Registries(NPCR) and The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14(2):175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, Shanmugaratnam K, Sobin L, Parkin DM, et al. International classification of diseases for oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benedix F, Kube R, Meyer F, Schmidt U, Gastinger I, Lippert H, Colon/rectum carcinomas (primary tumor) Study Group. Comparison of 17,641 patients with right and left-sided colon cancer: differences in epidemiology, perioperative course, histology, and survival. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(1):57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Missiaglia E, Jacobs B, D’Ario G, Di Narzo AF, Soneson C, Budinska E, et al. Distal and proximal colon cancers differ in terms of molecular, pathological, and clinical features. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(10):1995–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riihimaki M, Hemminki A, Sundquist J, Hemminki K. Patterns of metastasis in colon and rectal cancer. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiss JM, Pfau PR, O’Connor ES, King J, LoConte N, Kennedy G, et al. Mortality by stage for right- versus left-sided colon cancer: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results—medicare data. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(33):4401–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Juo YY, Johnston FM, Zhang DY, Juo HH, Wang H, Pappou EP, et al. Prognostic value of CpG islandmethylator phenotype among colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(12):2314–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cha Y, Kim KJ, Han SW, Rhee YY, Bae JM, Wen X, et al. Adverse prognostic impact of the CpG island methylator phenotype in metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;115(2):164–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee Michael S, Menter David G, Kopetz Scott. Right versus left colon cancer biology: integrating the consensus molecular subtypes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(3):411–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guinney J, Dienstmann R, Wang X, de Reyniès A, Schlicker A, Soneson C, et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Med. 2015;21(11):1350–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sears CL, Garrett WS. Microbes, microbiota, and colon cancer. Cell Host Microbe. 2014;15(3):317–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson CH, Dejea CM, Edler D, Hoang LT, Santidrian AF, Felding BHI, et al. Metabolism links bacterial biofilms and colon carcinogenesis. Cell Metab. 2015;21(6):891–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hugen N, Nagtegaal ID. Distinct metastatic patterns in colorectal cancer patients based on primary tumour location. Eur J Cancer. 2017;75:3–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tejpar S, Stintzing S, Ciardiello F, Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Beier F, et al. Prognostic and predictive relevance of primary tumor location in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: retrospective analyses of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 trials. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(2):194–201.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rodel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1731–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Gijn W, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EM, Putter H, Wiggers T, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer: 12-year follow-up of the multicentre, randomised controlled TME trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roh MS, Colangelo LH, O’Connell MJ, Yothers G, Deutsch M, Allegra CJ, et al. Preoperative multimodality therapy improves disease-free survival in patients with carcinoma of the rectum: NSABP R-03. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5124–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Putter H, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(9):638–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kulu Y, Tarantino I, Billeter AT, Diener MK, Schmidt T, Büchler MW, et al. Comparative outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment prior to total mesorectal excision and total mesorectal excision alone in selected stage II/III low and mid rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(1):106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lacopetta B. Are there two sides to colorectal cancer? Int J Cancer. 2002;101(5):403–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meguid RA, Slidell MB, Wolfgang CL, Chang DC, Ahuja N. Is there a difference in survival between right-versus left-sided colon cancers? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(9):2388–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ColoproctologyThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Colorectal SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Central LaboratoryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations