Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: We investigated the characteristics of synchronous and metachronous gastric cancer in patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: We reviewed 8,680 patients who underwent operations for primary sporadic colorectal cancer from 1989 to 2008. Synchronous gastric cancer was defined as gastric cancer diagnosed within 6 months of a colorectal cancer diagnosis. Gastric cancer diagnosed more than 6 months before or after colorectal cancer was defined as metachronous. RESULTS: The incidences of synchronous and metachronous gastric cancer were 0.93 and 1.4%, respectively (combined 2.4%). The standardized incidence ratio was 1.199 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.005-1.420) when the patients with premetachronous gastric cancer were excluded. Patients with synchronous and metachronous gastric cancer were 5 years older on average compared to the control population without gastric cancer. In addition, multivariate analysis revealed an odds ratio (OR) of 3.6 for being male, OR = 2 for positive family history of solid tumors, OR = 2.2 for colonic lesion, and OR = 4 for MSH2 expression loss compared to patients without gastric cancer. Patients with postmetachronous gastric cancer (when compared to synchronous and premetachronous gastric cancer), a preoperative CEA level of less than 6 ng/ml, and a relatively early stage of colorectal cancer had significantly higher overall (p = 0.016, 0.007, and 0.004, respectively) and disease-free survival rates (p = 0.046, 0.003, and 0.004, respectively), only on univariate analysis. Lymphovascular invasion of colorectal cancer and an advanced stage of gastric cancer were independent poor prognostic factors for both overall (p = 0.018) and disease-free survival (p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Gastric cancer surveillance is recommended for patients with colorectal cancer, especially when the patient is old and male, has a positive family history of solid tumors, has a colonic lesion, or lacks MSH2 expression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoon et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: