Age-related disparity of survival outcomes and treatment-related adverse events in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
=============================================================================================================================

* Lingbin Meng
* Ram Thapa
* Maria G. Delgado
* Maria F. Gomez
* Rui Ji
* Todd C. Knepper
* Joleen M. Hubbard
* Xuefeng Wang
* Jennifer B. Permuth
* Richard D. Kim
* Damian A. Laber
* Hao Xie

## Abstract

**Background** While the incidence of newly diagnosed early-onset colorectal cancer has been increasing, age-related disparity of survival outcome and treatment-related adverse events in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has been inadequately studied with inconclusive findings. In this study, we aimed to evaluate such age-related disparity in this patient population.

**Methods** We used individual patient data from three clinical trials (Study 1: [NCT00272051](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link\_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00272051&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom), NCT 00305188 and Study 2: [NCT00364013](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00364013&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom)) in Project Data Sphere. All patients were diagnosed with mCRC and received first-line 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin. Clinical and genomic data of 763 patients with mCRC from Moffitt Cancer Center were used to assess genomic alterations and serve as an external and real-world validation cohort to evaluate overall survival (OS) disparity. Survival outcomes and treatment-related adverse events were estimated and compared in patients among three age groups: <50, 50-65, and >65 years.

**Results** Among 1223 patients from previous clinical trials, 179 (14.6%) were younger than 50 years. These patients had significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=1.46; 95%CI=1.22–1.76; *p*<0.001) and OS (HR=1.48; 95%CI=1.19–1.84; *p*<0.001) compared to patients in the 50-65 group of both Study 1 and Study 2 after adjustment for gender, race, and performance status. Significantly shorter OS was also observed in patients from the <50 group in the Moffitt cohort. When compared to other age groups, the <50 group had significantly higher incidence of nausea/vomiting (69.3% vs 57.6% vs 60.4%, *p*=0.019), severe abdominal pain (8.4% vs 3.4% vs 3.5%, *p*=0.018), severe anemia (6.1% vs 1.0% vs 1.5%, *p*<0.001), and severe rash (2.8% vs 1.2% vs 0.4%, *p*=0.047), but significantly lower incidence of fatigue, severe diarrhea, severe fatigue, and severe neutropenia. The <50 group had earlier onset of nausea/vomiting (1.0 vs 2.1 vs 2.6 weeks, *p*=0.012), mucositis (3.6 vs 5.1 vs 5.7 weeks, *p*=0.051), and neutropenia (8.0 vs 9.4 vs 8.4 weeks, *p*=0.043), and shorter duration of mucositis (0.6 vs 0.9 vs 1.0 weeks, *p*=0.006). In the <50 group, severe abdominal pain and severe liver toxicity were associated with both shorter OS and PFS. In contrast, moderate peripheral neuropathy was associated with longer PFS. Our genomic data showed that the <50 group had higher prevalence of *CTNNB1* mutation (6.6% vs 3.1% vs 2.3%, *p*=0.047), *ERBB2* amplification (5.1% vs 0.6% vs 2.3%, *p*=0.005), and *CREBBP* mutation (3.1% vs 0.9% vs 0.5%, *p*=0.050), but lower prevalence of *BRAF* mutation (7.7% vs 8.5% vs 16.7%, *p*=0.002).

**Conclusions** Patients with early-onset mCRC had worse survival outcome and unique adverse-event patterns, which could be partially attributed to distinct genomic profiles. Our findings might improve an individualized approach to chemotherapy, counseling, and management of treatment-related adverse events in this patient population.

## Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Despite the continuous decline of overall incidence and mortality of CRC in the United States as a result of nationwide-adopted screening program [2-4], the incidence of the early-onset CRC (EO-CRC), patients diagnosed with CRC before 50 years of age has been increasing by approximately 2% annually since the 1990s [5, 6]. It is projected that 10.9% of all colon cancers and 22.9% of all rectal cancers will be diagnosed as EO-CRC by 2030 [7, 8].

Neither the etiology of increased incidence nor the distinct biology of EO-CRC compared to its older counterparts are clearly revealed in the literature. For example, inherited cancer syndromes such as Lynch syndrome may be more prevalent in EO-CRC patients than in all patients with CRC. However, only 5-7% of the patients with EO-CRC carry those deleterious germline mutations of mismatch repair genes. Therefore, most EO-CRCs are sporadic in nature [9, 10]. Previous studies examining genomic profile of EO-CRC showed few molecular differences between EO-CRC and its older counterparts, except for an enrichment of microsatellite instability as expected from higher prevalence of Lynch syndrome in patients with EO-CRC [11]. Even the few molecular differences reported were often not confirmed in other studies likely due to selection bias in different patient cohorts [8, 12, 13]. Some studies investigated nongenetic risk factors for CRC, such as low physical activity, excess alcohol consumption, smoking, and obesity, but the results were neither conclusive nor adequately explaining the increased incidence of EO-CRC [14-16].

The increased incidence of EO-CRC poses unique challenges to the management of young patients with all stages of CRC, especially with regard to the prognosis and treatment-related adverse events [17]. In current clinical practice, patients with EO-CRC receive similar if not more aggressive therapies in the advanced disease setting compared to their older counterparts. Fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy plus biologics remains the most common first-line therapy for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) [18]. Triplet chemotherapy combination of fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) is an alternative for patients who are younger, have more aggressive disease and good performance status, offering a better treatment outcome at the expense of worse toxicities [19]. Although both anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody [20, 21] and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies in combination with chemotherapy showed comparable benefit in patients with advanced CRC of all ages [22, 23], it is unclear whether there is disparity in treatment-related adverse events and outcome from advanced CRC between early-onset and its older counterparts. Previous studies suggested an increased incidence of some specific toxicities such as nausea/vomiting in early-onset mCRC (EO-mCRC), but the data was largely limited in the adjuvant setting and findings across studies were not always in agreement [24-28]. Similarly, some studies reported a poorer survival in patients with advanced EO-CRC [24, 25, 29], whereas others observed a similar survival outcome between early-onset and average-onset patients with mCRC [26-28, 30, 31]. These discrepancies might be due to selection bias and/or the inclusion of older patients (age>65) in the average-onset group for comparison.

To address this literature gap, we used individual patient data from three clinical trials where patients with mCRC received first-line 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), and a real-world patient cohort to compare the differences of treatment outcome and adverse events among three different age groups of patients with mCRC.

## Patients and Methods

We used individual patient data from three multi-center, randomized phase III clinical trials in the Project Data Sphere and grouped them into Study 1 ([NCT00272051](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link\_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access\_num=NCT00272051&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom), [NCT00305188](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link\_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access\_num=NCT00305188&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom)) and Study 2 ([NCT00364013](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link\_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00364013&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom)). Clinical trials in Study 1 evaluated the efficacy of Xaliproden in reducing ([NCT00272051](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00272051&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom)) or preventing (NCT 00305188) the neurotoxicity of FOLFOX as first-line treatment for patients with mCRC. The clinical trial in Study 2 evaluated the efficacy of panitumumab in combination with FOLFOX as first-line therapy for patients with mCRC. Only individual patient data from the control (FOLFOX only) arms of the three clinical trials were combined and used in our study. Study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, interventions, endpoints, adverse events, and outcome of the three clinical trials have been previously reported [23, 32-35]. Given these patients were treated in a clinical trial setting prior to 2010, we included a real-word patient population as an external validation cohort for overall survival (OS). Patients of this cohort were identified from prospectively maintained Moffitt Clinical Genomic Action Committee Database and CARIS clinical database. These include patients diagnosed with mCRC and treated at Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) from 2006 to 2022 and have available clinical and next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. Clinical NGS data of these patients were provided by common commercially available platforms including FoundationOne, FoundationOne ACT, FoundationOne CDx, CARIS, and Guardant360 along with an in-house NGS assay referred to as Moffitt STAR. These platforms have been described in depth elsewhere previously [36-38]. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board by MCC through Advarra.

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death. Participants who were alive at the analysis data cutoff were censored at their last contact date. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from randomization to date of disease progression assessed radiographically per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0. Safety endpoints included incidence of any grade and grade 3-5 (severe) treatment-related adverse events according to the NCI-CTCAE version 3.0, the time of their onset, and their duration. Analyses of the differences of genetic alterations among three age groups were exploratory in nature.

All patients were divided into 3 age groups: <50, 50-65, and >65 years. The χ2 test and Fisher’s exact test were used to test the distribution of baseline characteristics, adverse events, and NGS genomic features in the 3 groups. Continuous variables were compared with Kruskall-Wallis test and chi-squared or exact Fisher test were performed for categorical variables. OS and PFS were evaluated according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the association of adverse events with OS and PFS. P values in this study were 2-sided, and a *P* value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Pairwise comparisons adjusting for multiple testing were performed using the Benjamini&Hochberg method.

## Results

### Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with mCRC

Among all 1959 patients included, 1223 were from Study 1 and Study 2 for analyses of survival outcomes and treatment-related adverse events. 736 patients were from the Moffitt cohort for assessment of OS and tumor genetic alterations. As shown in **Supplemental table 1**, the Moffitt cohort included a significantly higher rate of EO-mCRC patients (*p*<0.001), but lower prevalence of white patients (*p*<0.001). Of the patients from Study 1 and Study 2, 179 (14.6%), 582 (47.6%), and 462 (37.8%) patients were in age<50, 50-65, and >65 groups at the time of stage IV CRC diagnosis, respectively (**Table 1**). There were significantly more women in age<50 group in contrast to more men in age>65 group (*p*<0.001). Fewer white and more non-white individuals (*p*=0.012) were represented in age<50 group. No significant difference of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was observed among the three age groups (*p*=0.32).

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/T1)

Table 1. 
Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Study 1 and Study 2 stratified by age groups.

### Age-related disparity of survival outcome in patients with mCRC

In Study 1, patients in the age<50 group had shorter median OS compared to the age 50-65 and age>65 groups (15.5 vs 20.5 vs 20.8 months, *p*=0.0026, **Figure 1A**). Patients in the age<50 group also had shorter median PFS than that of the other two age groups (8.1 vs 9.4 vs 8.6 months, *p*=0.0044, **Figure 1B**). Similar findings were observed in Study 2 as shown in **Figure 1C** (median OS: 18.4 vs 22.7 vs 18.0 months, *p*=0.0078) and in **Figure 1D** (median PFS: 7.3 vs 9.3 vs 8.7 months, *p*=0.0048). In univariate survival analysis, age<50 years (age<50 vs age 50-65: HR=1.50; 95%CI=1.21–1.85; *p*<0.001) and poor ECOG performance status (2 vs 0/1: HR=2.49; 95%CI=1.75–3.54; *p*<0.001) were identified as poor prognostic factors for OS in both Study 1 and Study 2 combined. Age<50 years was confirmed in multivariable analysis as an independent poor prognostic factor for OS (age<50 vs age 50-65: HR=1.48; 95%CI=1.19–1.84; *p*<0.001) after adjustment for gender, race, and ECOG performance status. Age<50 years was similarly found to be an independent poor prognostic factor for PFS (age<50 vs age 50-65: HR=1.46; 95%CI=1.22–1.76; *p*<0.001) as shown in **Table 2**.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F1)

Figure 1. 
Survival outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer stratified by age groups. (A) Overall survival and (B) Progression-free survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Study 1; (C) Overall survival and (D) Progression-free survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Study 2.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/T2)

Table 2. 
The prognostic values of age groups and other common demographic and clinical factors in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Study 1 and Study 2.

### Age-related disparity of treatment-related adverse-event pattern in patients with mCRC

Examination of treatment-related adverse events of all patients from Study 1 and Study 2 combined revealed a unique pattern for patients in the age<50 group (Figure 2). As shown in **Figure 2A, 2B**, and **Supplemental table 2**, compared to the other two age groups, the age<50 group had higher incidence of nausea/vomiting (69.3% vs 57.6% vs 60.4%, *p*=0.019), severe abdominal pain (8.4% vs 3.4% vs 3.5%, *p*=0.018), severe anemia (6.1% vs 1.0% vs 1.5%, *p*<0.001), severe rash (2.8% vs 1.2% vs 0.4%, *p*=0.047), but lower incidence of fatigue (44.1% vs 46.9% vs 55.6%, *p*=0.0052), neutropenia (38.5% vs 39.7% vs 49.8%, *p*=0.0018), severe diarrhea (6.1% vs 9.1% vs 13.0%, *p*=0.02), severe fatigue (4.5% vs 5.5% vs 9.5%, *p*=0.019), and severe neutropenia (25.7% vs 26.5% vs 38.1%, *p*<0.001). The age<50 group had earlier onset of nausea/vomiting (1.0 vs 2.1 vs 2.6 weeks, *p*=0.012), mucositis (3.6 vs 5.1 vs 5.7 weeks, *p*=0.051), and neutropenia (8.0 vs 9.4 vs 8.4 weeks, *p*= 0.043) as shown in Figure 2C and Supplemental table 3. Finally, the age<50 group had shorter duration of mucositis (0.6 vs 0.9 vs 1.0 weeks, *p*=0.006) as shown in **Figure 2D** and **Supplemental table 4**.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F2)

Figure 2. 
Adverse event pattern of patients with early-onset metastatic colorectal cancer in Study 1 and Study 2. (A) Incidence of adverse events; (B) Incidence of severe (grade 3-5) adverse events; (C) Median time to onset of adverse events; (D) Median time to resolution of adverse events for each age group with statistically significant differences.

### The prognostic value of treatment-related adverse events in patients with EO-mCRC

As summarized in **Figure 3A** and **Supplemental table 5**, severe abdominal pain (HR=2.24; 95%CI=1.23–4.09; *p*=0.008), severe live toxicity (HR=3.99; 95%CI=0.95–16.76; *p*=0.059) were poor prognostic factors for OS. In contrast, moderate (grade 1/2) fatigue (HR=0.66; 95%CI=0.44–0.97; *p*=0.008), moderate mucositis (HR=0.64; 95%CI=0.43–0.97; *p*=0.035), and moderate rash (HR=0.63; 95%CI=0.40–1.00; *p*=0.049) were prognostic factors for better OS. Similarly, severe abdominal pain (HR=2.51; 95%CI=1.43–4.41; *p*=0.001), severe live toxicity (HR=2.82; 95%CI=0.89–8.97; *p*=0.079) were poor prognostic factors for PFS. In contrast, moderate peripheral neuropathy (HR=0.43; 95%CI=0.26–0.71; *p*=0.001) was prognostic for better PFS (**Figure 3A** and **Supplemental table 5**).

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F3)

Figure 3. 
The prognostic value of adverse events in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Study 1 and Study 2. Hazard ratio of adverse events for (A) overall survival and (B) progression-free survival with statistical significance or a trend toward significance.

### Survival outcome and genetic alterations in patients with mCRC from the MCC cohort

As shown in Supplemental table 6, of the 736 patients in the MCC cohort, 196 (26.6%), 319 (43.3%), and 221 (30.1%) patients were in the age<50, age 50-65, and age>65 groups, respectively. The age<50 group were more frequent to receive triplet therapy (*p*<0.001) and carry left-sided tumor (*p*<0.001), while the age>65 group had a higher rate of white patients (*p*=0.044). Despite the difference of baseline characteristics between the MCC cohort and Study 1 and 2 (**Supplemental table 1**), patients in the age<50 group consistently showed worse median OS compared to the age 50-65 group and comparable median OS to the age>65 group (39.2 vs 51.3 vs 38.0 months, *p* = 0.018, **Figure 4A**). Further examination of genetic alterations was performed to explore the potential underlying causes of this age-related disparity of survival outcome in patients with mCRC. As listed in **Figure 4B** and **Supplemental table 7**, we found that all three age groups had very similar genetic alterations except that compared to the other two age groups, tumor of patients in the age<50 group had higher prevalence of *CTNNB1* mutation (6.6% vs 3.1% vs 2.3%, *p*=0.047), *ERBB2* amplification (5.1% vs 0.6% vs 2.3%, *p*=0.005), and *CREBBP* mutation (3.1% vs 0.9% vs 0.5%, *p*=0.050), but lower incidence of *BRAF* mutation (7.7% vs 8.5% vs 16.7%, *p*=0.002) as shown in **Figure 4B** and **Supplemental table 7**.

![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280865/F4)

Figure 4. 
(A) Overall survival and (B) Prevalence of common gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Moffitt Cancer Center cohort stratified by age groups. * *p* < 0.05; ** *p* < 0.01.

## Discussion

Hypotheses for increased incidence of EO-CRC despite a decline in overall incidence [5, 6] was that EO-CRC may be a different disease compared with its older counterparts as reflected by distinct clinicopathological and molecular features [5, 39]. Previous studies that attempted to investigate such age-related disparity of survival outcomes had discordant findings. Several studies found an association between younger age and worse survival [25, 29, 40, 41], whereas more studies revealed opposite findings [24, 26, 27, 30, 42, 43]. Lieu and colleagues observed younger and older ages were associated with worse survival in patients with mCRC [29]. However, all recent studies showed at least comparable [26-28, 30, 31] if not better prognosis [44] in patients with EO-mCRC. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first analysis of individual patients data from clinical trials and a more contemporary real-world cohort that demonstrated worse survival outcomes in patients with EO-mCRC.

Inconsistent findings from some of the previous studies could be partially attributed to the dichotomization of patient population with a single cutoff at the age of 50 years. The assumption of homogeneity of patients older than 50 was not valid as an abundance of literature in geriatric oncology have reported unique treatment response and outcome in very old patients [45, 46]. For example, in the study of Lieu and colleagues, when age was treated as a continuous variable, older age was also associated with worse survival [29], presumably due to reduced life expectancy, increased comorbidities, or inability to tolerate aggressive chemotherapy regimens in older (age>65) patients with mCRC [47]. Therefore, in our study, we divided patients into three age groups (<50, 50-65, and >65 years) for analysis. As expected, we found that patients in both age<50 and age>65 groups had worse OS compared to age 50-65 group. Another distinct feature of our study is that patients in our test cohort for initial analysis received the same treatment, first line FOLFOX for mCRC to minimize possible risk modification from different treatment regimen on survival. Gratifyingly, similar observation has also been found in our real-world patient cohort who received different treatment regimen including singlet, doublet, and triplet chemotherapy with biologics.

Differences in baseline characteristics of patient populations could also prevent us from observing the age-related disparity of survival outcomes in previous studies. In our study, we found a higher proportion of females in patients with EO-mCRC in line with previous studies [24, 27, 28, 42, 48]. The underlying reasons could be due to either a potential selection bias or a differential genetic susceptibility, which warranted further studies. Meanwhile, consistent with previous studies [26, 48], a lower proportion of white patients were observed in EO-m CRC group. Given prior studies that suggested gender and race disparity on survival [49], we performed multivariable analysis to adjust for gender and race in addition to ECOG performance status which was believed to be better at the baseline in younger patients [26].

To utilize excellent recording of treatment-related adverse events in clinical trial data, we also compared them among the three age groups and observed age-related disparity in patients with mCRC. Consistent with previous findings in the adjuvant setting [24-28], our data showed an increased incidence of nausea/vomiting but decreased incidence of diarrhea, fatigue and neutropenia in younger patients. Previously reported potential decrease of toxicity profile in younger patients [27, 50], was not entirely supported by our study since we also observed higher incidence of severe abdominal pain, severe anemia and severe rash in patients with EO-mCRC. In addition, they had earlier onset of nausea/vomiting, mucositis and neutropenia. Hence, it is more appropriate to say that patients with EO-mCRC exhibited unique pattern of adverse events after receiving first-line FOLFOX. Moreover, the association between severe abdominal pain and severe liver toxicity with worse survival in younger patients suggested an individualized approach to the monitoring and management of these unique treatment-related adverse events.

The age-related disparity of survival outcomes and adverse events may suggest a unique underlying disease biology in different age groups. Comprehensive genomic profiling in some studies demonstrated higher prevalence of *TP53* and *CTNNB1* mutations, but lower prevalence of *BRAF* and *APC* mutations in EO-mCRC [11, 28, 43, 51, 52], in line with some of the findings in our study. There was also higher prevalence of *ERBB2* amplification and *CREBBP* mutation in EO-mCRC of our patient cohort. It is still unclear if these differences of genetic alterations might partially explain the observed disparity in survival outcome given again the inconsistent findings across studies and the numerically small differences of a few out of many genes. Thus, further efforts should likely focus on multi-omics studies such as proteogenomic analysis of EO-mCRC to inform disease biology and therapy.

Our study has several strengths over previous studies. First and foremost, we included two additional cohorts, one from another clinical trial, the other one from a real-world patient population, to validate our findings of age-related disparity of survival outcome. Efforts to include external validation cohorts that came from a different time period and have distinct baseline patient characteristics ensured the robustness of our findings. We utilized the excellent quality of prospectively collected clinical trial data on survival endpoints and treatment-related adverse events to study age-related disparity in mCRC. However, these clinical trials were conducted in an era where biologic agents had not become standard first-line therapy for patients with mCRC and clinical NGS was not used to guide treatment. To compensate and address these limitations intrinsic to these data used in our study for analyses, we incorporated our institutional patient and clinical NGS data that were from modern era and more heterogeneous on patients and their treatment as an external validation cohort. In fact, distributions of some important baseline characteristics such as race, tumor sidedness, and first-line treatments in this MCC patient cohort were consistent with those previously reported [26, 28, 31, 48]. However, as a limitation, we did not evaluate adverse events, PFS, and perform multivariable survival analysis in this cohort because retrospective data collection even if some of the data were from prospectively maintained database were very prone to selection bias and inaccuracy.

In conclusion, we observed age-related disparity of survival outcome and treatment-related adverse events in patients with mCRC. Patients with EO-mCRC who received first-line treatment had worse survival compared to their older counterparts and experienced unique treatment-related adverse events. These findings may inform individualized management approaches in patients with early-onset metastatic CRC.

## Supporting information

Supplemental Tables [[supplements/280865_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

## Funding

No funding was received for this work.

## Notes

### Role of the funder

Not applicable.

### Disclosures

All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

### Author contributions

Conceptualization: LM, HX; Methodology: LM, RT, RJ, XW, HX; Data collection: LM, MGD, MFG, TCK, HX; Data analysis and interpretation: LM, RT, RJ, JMH, RDK, HX; Original draft preparation: LM, HX; Manuscript review and editing: All authors.

## Data Availability

The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online Supplementary Material. The data sharing of individual patient data from each participating trial will be subject to the policy and procedures of the institutions and groups who conducted the original study.

*   Received October 8, 2022.
*   Revision received October 8, 2022.
*   Accepted October 10, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Xi Y, Xu P. Global colorectal cancer burden in 2020 and projections to 2040. Translational Oncology 2021;14(10):101174.
    
    

2.  2.Welch HG, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancer on the decline—why screening can’t explain it all. N Engl J Med 2016;374(17):1605–1607.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMp1600448&link_type=DOI) 

3.  3. Control CfD, Prevention. Vital signs: Colorectal cancer screening, incidence, and mortality--United States, 2002-2010. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2011;60(26):884–889.
    
    

4.  4.Zauber AG. The impact of screening on colorectal cancer mortality and incidence: has it really made a difference? Digestive diseases and sciences 2015;60(3):681–691.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10620-015-3600-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25740556&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

5.  5.Stoffel EM, Murphy CC. Epidemiology and mechanisms of the increasing incidence of colon and rectal cancers in young adults. Gastroenterology 2020;158(2):341–353.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

6.  6.Akimoto N, Ugai T, Zhong R, et al. Rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer—A call to action. Nature reviews Clinical oncology 2021;18(4):230–243.
    
    

7.  7.Cercek A, Chatila WK, Yaeger R, et al. A comprehensive comparison of early-onset and average-onset colorectal cancers. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2021;113(12):1683–1692.
    
    

8.  8.Bailey CE, Hu C-Y, You YN, et al. Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975-2010. JAMA surgery 2015;150(1):17–22.
    
    

9.  9.Limburg PJ, Harmsen WS, Chen HH, et al. Prevalence of alterations in DNA mismatch repair genes in patients with young-onset colorectal cancer. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2011;9(6):497–502.
    
    

10. 10.Schofield L, Watson N, Grieu F, et al. Population-based detection of Lynch syndrome in young colorectal cancer patients using microsatellite instability as the initial test. International Journal of Cancer 2009;124(5):1097–1102.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ijc.23863&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19072991&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

11. 11.Willauer AN, Liu Y, Pereira AA, et al. Clinical and molecular characterization of early-onset colorectal cancer. Cancer 2019;125(12):2002–2010.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

12. 12.Yantiss RK, Goodarzi M, Zhou XK, et al. Clinical, pathologic, and molecular features of early-onset colorectal carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology 2009;33(4):572–582.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/PAS.0b013e31818afd6b&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19047896&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000264818800012&link_type=ISI) 

13. 13.Yeo H, Betel D, Abelson JS, et al. Early-onset colorectal cancer is distinct from traditional colorectal cancer. Clinical colorectal cancer 2017;16(4):293-299.e6.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

14. 14.Archambault AN, Lin Y, Jeon J, et al. Nongenetic determinants of risk for early-onset colorectal cancer. JNCI cancer spectrum 2021;5(3):pkab029.
    
    

15. 15.Scherübl H. Alcohol use and gastrointestinal cancer risk. Visceral Medicine 2020;36(3):175–181.
    
    

16. 16.Low EE, Demb J, Liu L, et al. Risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2020;159(2):492-501.e7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31926997&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

17. 17.Eng C, Hochster H. Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: The Mystery Remains. In: Oxford University Press; 2021, 1608–1610.
    
    

18. 18.Tournigand C, André T, Achille E, et al. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004;22(2):229–237.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjIyLzIvMjI5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTAvMTAvMjAyMi4xMC4wOC4yMjI4MDg2NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

19. 19.Falcone A, Ricci S, Brunetti I, et al. Phase III trial of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) compared with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest. Journal of clinical oncology 2007;25(13):1670–1676.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIyNS8xMy8xNjcwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTAvMTAvMjAyMi4xMC4wOC4yMjI4MDg2NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

20. 20.Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R, et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol 2012;30(28):3499–3506.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzMC8yOC8zNDk5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTAvMTAvMjAyMi4xMC4wOC4yMjI4MDg2NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

21. 21.Tabernero J, Yoshino T, Cohn AL, et al. Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study. The Lancet Oncology 2015;16(5):499–508.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70127-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25877855&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

22. 22.Van Cutsem E, Köhne C-H, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2009;360(14):1408–1417.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa0805019&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19339720&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000264751800006&link_type=ISI) 

23. 23.Douillard J-Y, Siena S, Cassidy J, et al. Final results from PRIME: randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Annals of Oncology 2014;25(7):1346–1355.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/annonc/mdu141&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24718886&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

24. 24.Blanke CD, Bot BM, Thomas DM, et al. Impact of young age on treatment efficacy and safety in advanced colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of patients from nine first-line phase III chemotherapy trials. Journal of clinical oncology 2011;29(20):2781.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIyOS8yMC8yNzgxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTAvMTAvMjAyMi4xMC4wOC4yMjI4MDg2NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

25. 25.Fontana E, Meyers J, Sobrero A, et al. Early-onset colorectal adenocarcinoma in the IDEA database: treatment adherence, toxicities, and outcomes with 3 and 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2021;39(36):4009–4019.
    
    

26. 26.Lipsyc-Sharf M, Zhang S, Ou F-S, et al. Survival in young-onset metastatic colorectal cancer: Findings from cancer and leukemia group B (Alliance)/SWOG 80405. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2022;114(3):427–435.
    
    

27. 27.Antoniotti C, Germani MM, Rossini D, et al. FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab in patients with early-onset metastatic colorectal cancer. A pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies. European Journal of Cancer 2022;167:23–31.
    
    

28. 28.Raimondi A, Randon G, Prisciandaro M, et al. Early onset metastatic colorectal cancer in patients receiving panitumumab-based upfront strategy: overall and sex-specific outcomes in the Valentino trial. International Journal of Cancer 2022:ijc34156.
    
    

29. 29.Lieu CH, Renfro LA, De Gramont A, et al. Association of age with survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis from the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32(27):2975.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzMi8yNy8yOTc1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTAvMTAvMjAyMi4xMC4wOC4yMjI4MDg2NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

30. 30.Kneuertz PJ, Chang GJ, Hu C-Y, et al. Overtreatment of young adults with colon cancer: more intense treatments with unmatched survival gains. JAMA surgery 2015;150(5):402–409.
    
    

31. 31.Kanter K, Fish M, Mauri G, et al. Care patterns and overall survival in patients with early-onset metastatic colorectal cancer. JCO Oncology Practice 2021;17(12):e1846–e1855.
    
    

32. 32.Abdel-Rahman O. Effect of body mass index on 5-FU-based chemotherapy toxicity and efficacy among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer; a pooled analysis of 5 randomized trials. Clinical Colorectal Cancer 2019;18(4):e385–e393.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clcc.2019.07.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31378656&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

33. 33.Abdel-Rahman O. Impact of sex on chemotherapy toxicity and efficacy among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of 5 randomized trials. Clinical Colorectal Cancer 2019;18(2):110-115.e2.
    
    

34. 34.Douillard J-Y, Oliner KS, Siena S, et al. Panitumumab–FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;369(11):1023–1034.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1305275&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24024839&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000324304200011&link_type=ISI) 

35. 35.Douillard J-Y, Siena S, Cassidy J, et al. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. Journal of clinical oncology 2010;28(31):4697–4705.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIyOC8zMS80Njk3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTAvMTAvMjAyMi4xMC4wOC4yMjI4MDg2NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

36. 36.Frampton GM, Fichtenholtz A, Otto GA, et al. Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nature biotechnology 2013;31(11):1023–1031.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nbt.2696&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24142049&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

37. 37.He J, Abdel-Wahab O, Nahas MK, et al. Integrated genomic DNA/RNA profiling of hematologic malignancies in the clinical setting. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology 2016;127(24):3004–3014.
    
    

38. 38.Odegaard JI, Vincent JJ, Mortimer S, et al. Validation of a Plasma-Based Comprehensive Cancer Genotyping Assay Utilizing Orthogonal Tissue-and Plasma-Based MethodologiesValidation of a Comprehensive Cancer Liquid Biopsy Test. Clinical Cancer Research 2018;24(15):3539–3549.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImNsaW5jYW5yZXMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjI0LzE1LzM1MzkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMC8xMC8yMDIyLjEwLjA4LjIyMjgwODY1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

39. 39.Araghi M, Soerjomataram I, Bardot A, et al. Changes in colorectal cancer incidence in seven high-income countries: a population-based study. The lancet Gastroenterology & hepatology 2019;4(7):511–518.
    
    

40. 40.Bleyer A, Barr R, Hayes-Lattin B, et al. The distinctive biology of cancer in adolescents and young adults. Nature Reviews Cancer 2008;8(4):288–298.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrc2349&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18354417&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254133500017&link_type=ISI) 

41. 41.Fu J, Yang J, Tan Y, et al. Young patients (≤ 35years old) with colorectal cancer have worse outcomes due to more advanced disease: a 30-year retrospective review. Medicine 2014;93(23).
    
    

42. 42.Cheng E, Blackburn HN, Ng K, et al. Analysis of survival among adults with earlyonset colorectal cancer in the national cancer database. JAMA Network Open 2021;4(6):e2112539–e2112539.
    
    

43. 43.Chang DT, Pai RK, Rybicki LA, et al. Clinicopathologic and molecular features of sporadic early-onset colorectal adenocarcinoma: an adenocarcinoma with frequent signet ring cell differentiation, rectal and sigmoid involvement, and adverse morphologic features. Modern Pathology 2012;25(8):1128–1139.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/modpathol.2012.61&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22481281&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

44. 44.van der Heide DM, Turaga KK, Chan CH, et al. Mismatch Repair Status Correlates with Survival in Young Adults with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Journal of Surgical Research 2021;266:104–112.
    
    

45. 45.Kozloff M, Sugrue M, Purdie D, et al. Safety and effectiveness of bevacizumab (BV) and chemotherapy (CT) in elderly patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): results from the BRiTE observational cohort study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008;26(15_suppl):4026–4026.
    
    

46. 46.Hofheinz R, Derigs H-G, Piringer G, et al. Interim analysis of the non-interventional study QoLiTrap (AIO-LQ-0113) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with aflibercept (AFL)+ FOLFIRI: Efficacy according to age group≤ 65 and> 65 years. Annals of Oncology 2018;29:viii192.
    
    

47. 47.Bradley CJ, Yabroff KR, Warren JL, et al. Trends in the treatment of metastatic colon and rectal cancer in elderly patients. Medical care 2016;54(5):490–497.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MLR.0000000000000510&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26900834&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

48. 48.Jin Z, Dixon JG, Fiskum JM, et al. Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of early-onset stage III colon adenocarcinoma: an analysis of the ACCENT database. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2021;113(12):1693–1704.
    
    

49. 49.Holowatyj AN, Ruterbusch JJ, Rozek LS, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in survival among patients with young-onset colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34(18):2148.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzNC8xOC8yMTQ4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTAvMTAvMjAyMi4xMC4wOC4yMjI4MDg2NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

50. 50.Marmorino F, Rossini D, Lonardi S, et al. Impact of age and gender on the safety and efficacy of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies. Annals of Oncology 2019;30(12):1969–1977.
    
    

51. 51.Xicola RM, Manojlovic Z, Augustus GJ, et al. Lack of APC somatic mutation is associated with early-onset colorectal cancer in African Americans. Carcinogenesis 2018;39(11):1331–1341.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F10%2F10%2F2022.10.08.22280865.atom) 

52. 52.Lieu CH, Golemis EA, Serebriiskii IG, et al. Comprehensive genomic landscapes in early and later onset colorectal cancer. Clinical cancer research 2019;25(19):5852–5858.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImNsaW5jYW5yZXMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjI1LzE5LzU4NTIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMC8xMC8yMDIyLjEwLjA4LjIyMjgwODY1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)