Epidemiology and familial risk of synchronous and metachronous colorectal cancer: a population-based study in Utah.

Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Wong J, Tuohy TM, Mineau GP, Smith KR, Pimentel R, Pappas L, Boucher K, Garrido-Laguna I, Provenzale D, Burt RW. Epidemiology and familial risk of synchronous and metachronous colorectal cancer: a population-based study in Utah. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. 2014 Dec 1; 12(12):2078-84.e1-2.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND and AIMS: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at risk for synchronous and metachronous lesions at the time of diagnosis or during follow-up evaluation. We performed a population-based study to evaluate the rate, predictors, and familial risk for synchronous and metachronous CRC in Utah. METHODS: All newly diagnosed cases of CRC between 1980 and 2010 were obtained from the Utah Cancer Registry and linked to pedigrees from the Utah Population Database. RESULTS: Of the 18,782 patients diagnosed with CRC, 134 were diagnosed with synchronous CRC (0.71%) and 300 were diagnosed with metachronous CRC (1.60%). The risk for synchronous CRC was significantly higher in men (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.06) and in patients aged 65 years or older (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.02-2.21). Synchronous CRCs were located more often in the proximal colon (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.20-2.41). First-degree relatives of cases with synchronous (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.37-2.53), metachronous (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.62-3.36), or solitary CRC (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.63-1.88) were at increased risk for developing CRC, compared with relatives of CRC-free individuals. Four percent of first-degree relatives of patients with synchronous or metachronous cancer developed CRC at younger ages than the age recommended for initiating CRC screening (based on familial risk), and therefore would not have been screened. CONCLUSIONS: Of patients diagnosed with CRC, 2.3% are found to have synchronous lesions or develop metachronous CRC during follow-up evaluation. Relatives of these patients have a greater risk of CRC than those without a family history of CRC. These results highlight the importance of obtaining a thorough family history and adhering strictly to surveillance guidelines during management of high-risk patients.