
==== Front
BJS Open
BJS Open
bjsopen
BJS Open
2474-9842
Oxford University Press UK

10.1093/bjsopen/zrae092
zrae092
Systematic Review
AcademicSubjects/MED00910
Bjs/4
Risk of metachronous neoplasia in early-onset colorectal cancer: meta-analysis
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8322-6421
Pellino Gianluca Colorectal Surgery, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain

Fuschillo Giacomo Colorectal Surgery, Department of Advanced Medical and Surgical Sciences, Università degli Studi della Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Naples, Italy

González-Sarmiento Rogelio Molecular Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute of Salamanca (IBSAL), Salamanca, Spain

Martí-Gallostra Marc Colorectal Surgery, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain

Selvaggi Francesco Colorectal Surgery, Department of Advanced Medical and Surgical Sciences, Università degli Studi della Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Naples, Italy

Espín-Basany Eloy Colorectal Surgery, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5522-8844
Perea Jose Molecular Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute of Salamanca (IBSAL), Salamanca, Spain
Department of Surgery, Vithas Arturo Soria University Hospital, Madrid, Spain

Correspondence to: (G.P.) FACS, Colorectal Surgery, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron 119-129, 08035 Barcelona, Spain (e-mail: gianluca.pellino@uab.cat; gipe1984@gmail.com); (J.P.) Biomedical Research Institute of Salamanca (IBSAL), 37007 Salamanca, Spain; Department of Surgery, Vithas Arturo Soria University Hospital, 28043 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: josepereag@hotmail.com)
10 2024
04 9 2024
04 9 2024
8 5 zrae09206 6 2024
01 7 2024
08 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Metachronous colorectal cancer refers to patients developing a second colorectal neoplasia diagnosed at least 6 months after the initial cancer diagnosis, excluding recurrence. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer in early-onset colorectal cancer (defined as age at diagnosis of less than 50 years) and to identify risk factors.

Methods

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis performed following the PRISMA statement and registered on PROSPERO. The literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase. Only studies involving patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (less than 50 years old) providing data on metachronous colorectal cancer were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Secondary endpoints were association with Lynch syndrome, family history and microsatellite instability.

Results

Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer was 2.6% (95% c.i. 2.287–3.007). The risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer in early-onset colorectal cancer versus non-early-onset colorectal cancer patients demonstrated an OR of 0.93 (95% c.i. 0.760–1.141). The incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer in patients with Lynch syndrome was 18.43% (95% c.i. 15.396–21.780), and in patients with family history 10.52% (95% c.i. 5.555–17.659). The proportion of metachronous colorectal cancer tumours in the microsatellite instability population was 19.7% (95% c.i. 13.583–27.2422).

Conclusion

The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer is comparable to those with advanced age, but it is higher in patients with Lynch syndrome, family history and microsatellite instability. This meta-analysis demonstrates the need to personalize the management of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer according to their risk factors.

The risk of metachronous colorectal cancers in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer is comparable to those with advanced age, but they can occur later and be associated with family history and Lynch syndrome, advocating the need to identify the ideal follow-up pathways in this patient population.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates vary around the world. Globally, CRC is the third most diagnosed cancer in men and in women1. The geographical incidence of CRC varies over 10-fold, with the highest incidence rates in Australia and New Zealand, Europe and the USA, and the lowest rates found in Africa and South Central Asia2. The prognosis of CRC depends on its stage at diagnosis, and early detection increases the probability of cure3. Once treated with curative intent, the patient's follow-up will vary according to the stage of CRC at diagnosis, as well as the type of treatment received and the patient's risk. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend, in the general population, a colonoscopy 1 year after surgery, then 3 years later and finally, every 5 years after the last colonoscopy3–5.

Metachronous colorectal cancer (mCRC) refers to patients with CRC developing a second CRC neoplasia diagnosed at least 6 months after the initial cancer diagnosis6, excluding recurrences at the anastomotic site. Patients who have developed CRC have an increased risk of developing other lesions along the colon during follow-up. Several studies in patients with sporadic CRC have established that the frequency of mCRC is approximately 1–5%7–9. Nevertheless, hereditary CRC syndromes are one of the most important risk factors leading to mCRC, increasing the frequency of a second tumour in these patients by 10–20%10,11. Among these, the most frequent, Lynch syndrome, shows a metachronous tumour rate of 12–33% with a follow-up interval of up to 15 years, and is significantly lower in patients who underwent subtotal/total colectomy (0–6%)12. The risk profile can change the management options regarding surgery (more extensive surgery) and more frequent surveillance13.

The incidence of CRC in individuals diagnosed before the age of 50 years has been rising over the last three decades (i.e. early-onset CRC; EOCRC). The incidence of colon and rectal cancers in the USA is estimated to increase by 90.0% and 124.2% respectively, for patients aged 20 to 34 years, and by 27.7% and 46.0% respectively, for patients aged 35 to 49 years by 203014,15. Although heterogeneous, this rise is also confirmed in Europe16. This has led to increasing research to better understand this emerging problem and how best to manage it, including enhanced surveillance. There is limited evidence regarding the management of metachronous colorectal neoplasia in this subset of patients. Only a few publications address this issue, covering the prevalence of young-onset adenoma (YOA) (9%). It demonstrates an increase with age and higher risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia after YOA diagnosis, estimated to be 6%17. This systematic review with meta-analysis focused on EOCRC and the risk of mCRC, as well as on factors that may be involved.

Methods

The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA)18 statement and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023444057).

Search strategy and data sources

The literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase, with no time restrictions. The following data were extracted from included studies: first author, year of publication, country, study design, number of patients, number of patients with metachronous colorectal neoplasia, age range of patients involved and duration of follow-up. The search terms used were: ‘early onset’ or ‘young patients’ or ‘young onset’ and ‘metachronous’ and ‘colorectal cancer’. A cross-reference search was used.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Only studies involving patients with EOCRC (<50 years) that provided data regarding occurrence of mCRC were included in the analysis. Studies with non-extractable data, with no full-text available and those written in languages other than English were excluded. If more than one study was conducted by the same centre, only the most recent one was included. Studies only reporting data on adenomas or neoplasms other than cancer were not considered.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was the risk of occurrence of mCRC in patients with EOCRC, defined as developing a second CRC neoplasia diagnosed at least 6 months after the initial cancer diagnosis, excluding recurrences at the anastomotic site, in CRC patients.

Secondary endpoints were: risk of mCRC in patients with Lynch syndrome, risk of mCRC in patients with a family history and risk of mCRC in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI).

Statistical analysis

All collected data regarding the endpoints were reported in an Excel table showing the number of patients involved in the studies, number of mCRC observed, number of patients with Lynch syndrome, MSI and family history of CRC.

A proportional meta-analysis was performed to assess the mean rate of mCRC using MedCalc® statistical software. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using P values of the Cochrane Q test and inconsistency (I2) statistics.

The comparative meta-analysis on risk in younger versus older patients was performed with the same software, and the estimated effect measures are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (c.i.).

Risk-of-bias assessment and quality of the studies

The Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data was utilized to evaluate the quality of the studies19. This tool assessed studies according to 10 questions. If the answer was yes, the question was assigned a score of 1. If the answer was no, unclear or not applicable, a score of 0 was assigned.

Results

The search yielded 375 studies, 235 from MEDLINE (PubMed) and 140 from Embase. The criteria used for the search were (‘early onset’ or ‘young patients’ or ‘young onset’) and ‘metachronous’ and ‘colorectal cancer’. The search was performed on 31 October 2023. Titles and abstracts were assessed; 71 duplicates were excluded. Reviews, meta-analyses and case reports were excluded. Full-text articles were reviewed, with eight being excluded owing to lack of relevant data. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria20–35. There was 100% agreement among reviewers in the extraction of data, reported in a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet. The PRISMA flow chart selection is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chartFlow chart of study selection for the present meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement.

In total, 7865 patients with CRC were included in the analysis. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Author	Year	Country	Study design	Mean follow-up (days)	Definition of early onset	Mean age (years)	No. of patients	Risk-of-bias assessment	
Myers et al.30	2013	USA	Retrospective	NA	<50	41.4	180	7	
Chen et al.21	2021	USA	Retrospective	45	18–49	43	107	8	
Kim et al.25	2016	Korea	Retrospective	66.4	<45	38	693	9	
Parry et al.31	2011	New Zealand	Retrospective	96	<49	NA	222	8	
Aronson et al.20	2015	Canada	Retrospective	74.4	<35	29.7	285	9	
Djursby et al.22	2020	Denmark	Prospective	NA	<40	36	50	10	
Ikenaga et al.23	2002	Japan	Prospective	NA	<40	34.7	53	8	
Kozak et al.28	2017	USA	Retrospective	68	<50	33.9	150	10	
Kim et al.26	2017	Korea	Retrospective	NA	<50	43.7	95	9	
Win et al.35	2013	Australia	Retrospective	132	<50	42.8	79	8	
Samadder et al.32	2014	USA	Retrospective	NA	<50	43.2	1749	9	
Klos et al.27	2014	USA	Retrospective	24	<50	NA	301	8	
Tian et al.33	2020	China	Retrospective	54.9	<50	NA	74	10	
Tjaden et al.34	2021	USA	Retrospective	NA	<50	NA	92	8	
Lee et al.29	2016	Korea	Retrospective	NA	<50	NA	3205	10	
Kim et al.24	2017	Korea	Retrospective	36	<50	NA	530	9	
NA, not available.

mCRC in patients with EOCRC

All included studies provided data regarding number of mCRC in young patients; 7865 patients under 50 years with CRC history were included. Among them, 257 developed mCRC. The rate of mCRC in patients with CRC was 2.6% (95% c.i. 2.287 to 3.007, I2 94.38%, P < 0.001) as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Proportion meta-analysis of metachronous colorectal cancer (mCRC) in early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC)Forest plot showing the rates of mCRC in EOCRC among the included studies.

The risk of developing mCRC in young versus older patients was assessed (Fig. 3). Eight studies reported data on patient over 50 years; the meta-analysis showed: OR 0.93, 95% c.i. 0.760 to 1.141, I2 59.07%, P = 0.017.

Fig. 3 Meta-analysis of metachronous colorectal cancer (mCRC) in young versus old populationmCRC in young (<50 years) versus older (>50 years) patients. Forest plot with odds ratio of single studies and overall odds ratio.

Risk of mCRC in patients with Lynch syndrome under the age of 50 years

Four studies20,23,31,35 reported data on patients with Lynch syndrome. Of 592 patients with EOCRC and Lynch syndrome, 111 developed mCRC (18.43%, 95% c.i. 15.396 to 21.780, I2 84.82%, P < 0.001). The proportional meta-analysis is reported in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 Proportion meta-analysis of metachronous colorectal cancer (mCRC) in early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) in patients with Lynch syndromeA forest plot showing the rates of mCRC in EOCRC in patients with Lynch syndrome among the included studies.

Risk of mCRC in patients with family history under the age of 50 years

Fig. S1 shows the proportional meta-analysis regarding the association of family history with a rate of 10.52% (95% c.i. 5.555 to 17.659, I2 81.20%, P = 0.005).

Risk of mCRC in patients with MSI under the age of 50 years

Two studies provided data on correlation with MSI. The proportion of mCRC tumours in an MSI patient population with EOCRC was 19.7% (95% c.i. 13.583 to 27.086, I2 26.90%, P = 0.242, Fig. S2).

Quality of studies

The overall strength of evidence is summarized in Table S1. Low risk of bias was found for 94% of the studies, scoring between 8 and 10. One study had a medium risk (score = 7).

Discussion

This systematic review with meta-analysis analysed mCRC in patients with EOCRC. The percentage of mCRC in EOCRC was found to be 2.6% compared with 2% reported in the literature with no age restriction36. The present meta-analysis focused specifically on the age of onset of CRC and demonstrated no increased risk of mCRC in EOCRC compared with the older population. This finding was also confirmed by another recent meta-analysis that demonstrated a pooled risk ratio per year of 1.05, 95% c.i. 0.96 to 1.1437.

An important factor to consider in this population is the association with other risk factors for mCRC such as Lynch syndrome. Germline pathogenic variants in known cancer predisposition genes appear in approximately 13% (range 9–26%) of patients with EOCRC38.

In the present study, this association increases the rate of mCRC to 18.43% in patients with EOCRC. This might justify a more extensive resection of the first tumour in young patients with CRC and Lynch syndrome. In fact, a recent meta-analysis on the risk of mCRC in patients with Lynch syndrome showed a lower risk rate (6% versus 22.8%) in patients undergoing extensive compared with segmental resection13. It could be proposed that the younger the patient, the higher the risk of mCRC, and the potential benefit from extended resection of the first tumour. In patients with Lynch syndrome, the management should be personalized, as the risk of mCRC after partial colectomy in carriers of low-risk variants has shown to be similar to that reported after extensive colectomy in carriers of high-risk variants, suggesting that non-extensive colectomies together with an endoscopic surveillance are sufficient in carriers of low-risk Lynch syndrome variants39,40.

Despite the importance of lifelong follow-up, the risk is not only higher with Lynch syndrome in younger individuals with CRC, but also for metachronous advanced neoplasia40. Patients with a family history of CRC also need to be followed up more rigorously and with shorter intervals. The present review found a 10.52% rate of mCRC in EOCRC patients with a family history of CRC, which suggests that such patients also need careful attention. A family history of CRC is known to be associated with an increased risk of metachronous neoplasia41.

Surveillance strategies after EOCRC treatment are not well defined, except for patients with a known hereditary CRC syndrome. A previous study42 demonstrated that 47% of EOCRC patients did not develop polyps after surgical treatment (with a follow-up longer than 7 years). Surveillance strategies need to be clarified and stratify patients with EOCRC to define correct intervals and individualized management. In general, the recommendation following a CRC resection is an initial follow-up colonoscopy after 1 year to identify any metachronous neoplasia; if negative, the next endoscopy is recommended at 3 years. Shorter intervals are advised based on the patient's age, family history and hereditary non-polyposis CRC status43. These patients need long follow-up given their young age, irrespective of the genetic and/or familial predisposition. Studies on EOCRC with longer intervals of surveillance are needed to define the appropriate approach. Patients with EOCRC should be made aware that they will need to be followed up for a longer time, until more evidence is produced.

MSI is also known to be associated with increased risk of mCRC, mostly due to patients with Lynch syndrome. Shitoh et al. demonstrated an almost six-fold increased risk in patients with MSI (OR 5.83, 95% c.i. 2.06 to 16.42)44. The current review showed that the proportion of mCRC tumours in the MSI patient population with EOCRC was 19.7%. Ikenaga et al. demonstrated that the frequency of MSI in patients with CRC is significantly higher than in the elderly population (50.1 versus 12–21% respectively). The authors conclude that microsatellite analysis and family history interviews are useful tools for the assessment of these patients23. Therefore, it is crucial, even more so in young patients, to have a preoperative diagnosis of Lynch syndrome or MSI to guide the best surgical treatment for these patients. The American College of Gastroenterology guidelines recommend, in all newly diagnosed CRCs, to evaluate patients for mismatch repair deficiency45.

It is also important to emphasize the importance of somatic testing on endoscopic biopsy and immunohistochemistry for Mismatch Repair (MMR) proteins or MSI testing. The challenge is timely access to rapid testing for Lynch syndrome, as patients on an oncology pathway need rapid treatment. In England, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has developed national guidelines recommending universal testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal (CRC, DG27) and endometrial (EC, DG42) cancer46.

There are three somatic investigations that can be used to detect MMR deficiency. Immunohistochemical analysis (IHC) identifies abnormally formed MMR proteins and may indicate the underlying gene in which MMR deficiency is present, or alternatively, PCR-based MSI testing. These tests can be performed as index tests in patients with CRC to identify those who might benefit from further evaluation for Lynch syndrome.

The findings of the present review should be interpreted with caution, as studies used for the meta-analysis were retrospective, and a selection bias could not be excluded. Heterogeneity of the data was moderate or high in some analyses. However, most studies had a low risk of bias, with only one found to have intermediate bias. The quantitative analysis of data obtained from studies performed on patient populations from different countries makes it possible to generalize the practical findings at a global level.

Supplementary Material

zrae092_Supplementary_Data

Acknowledgements

G.P. and G.F. contributed equally to this manuscript and share first authorship.

Funding

The authors have no funding to declare.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at BJS Open online.

Data availability

Additional data can be found as supplementary material and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author contributions

Gianluca Pellino (Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), Giacomo Fuschillo (Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing—original draft), Rogelio González-Sarmiento (Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review & editing), Marc Martí Gallostra (Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing—review & editing), Francesco Selvaggi (Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Writing—review & editing), Eloy Espin Basany (Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing—review & editing) and Jose Perea (Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing—original draft)
==== Refs
References

1 Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) Database . Cancer Today, DATAVIZ  https://gco.iarc.fr/ (accessed 13 August 2024).
2 Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration; Fitzmaurice  C, Allen  C, Barber  RM, Barregard  L, Bhutta  ZA  et al  Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol  2017;3 :524 27918777
3 Provenzale  D, Gupta  S, Ahnen  DJ, Markowitz  AJ, Chung  DC, Mayer  RJ  et al  NCCN guidelines insights: colorectal cancer screening, version 1.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw  2018;16 :939–949 30099370
4 Benson  AB, Venook  AP, Al-Hawary  MM, Cederquist  L, Chen  YJ, Ciombor  KK  et al  NCCN guidelines insights: colon cancer, version 2.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw  2018;16 :359–369 29632055
5 Glynne-Jones  R, Wyrwicz  L, Tiret  E, Brown  G, Rödel  C, Cervantes  A  et al  Rectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol  2017;28 :iv22–iv40 28881920
6 Moertel  CG, Bargen  JA, Dockerty  MB. Multiple carcinomas of the large intestine: a review of the literature and a study of 261 cases. Gastroenterology  1958;34 :85–98 13501357
7 Bruinvels  DJ, Stiggelbout  AM, Kievit  J, van Houwelingen  HC, Habbema  JD, van de Velde  CJ. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg  1994;219 :174–182 8129488
8 Mulder  SA, Kranse  R, Damhuis  RA, Ouwendijk  RJ, Kuipers  EJ, van Leerdam  ME. The incidence and risk factors of metachronous colorectal cancer: an indication for follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum  2012;55 :522–531 22513430
9 Walker  PA, Platell  C. Long-term outcomes of surgery for colorectal cancer: a 20-year study. J Surg Res  2019;235 :34–43 30691815
10 Papadopoulos  V, Michalopoulos  A, Basdanis  G, Papapolychroniadis  K, Paramythiotis  D, Fotiadis  P  et al  Synchronous and metachronous colorectal carcinoma. Tech Coloproctol  2004;8 :s97–s100 15655657
11 Angriman  I, Fassan  M, Nacci  C, De Simoni  O, Kotsafti  A, Businello  G  et al  Metachronous colorectal cancer have a similar microsatellite instability frequency but a lower infiltration of lymphomononuclear cells than primary lesions. Surgery  2022;171 :1605–1611 35000784
12 Toh  JWT, Hui  N, Collins  G, Phan  K. Survival outcomes associated with Lynch syndrome colorectal cancer and metachronous rate after subtotal/total versus segmental colectomy: meta-analysis. Surgery  2022;172 :1315–1322 36031446
13 Anele  CC, Adegbola  SO, Askari  A, Rajendran  A, Clark  SK, Latchford  A  et al  Risk of metachronous colorectal cancer following colectomy in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis  2017;19 :528–536 28407411
14 Bailey  CE, Hu  CY, You  YN, Bednarski  BK, Rodriguez-Bigas  MA, Skibber  JM  et al  Increasing disparities in the age-related incidences of colon and rectal cancers in the United States, 1975–2010. JAMA Surg  2015;150 :17–22 25372703
15 Siegel  RL, Torre  LA, Soerjomataram  I, Hayes  RB, Bray  F, Weber  TK  et al  Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence in young adults. Gut  2019;68 :2179–2185 31488504
16 Wei  T, Luo  P, Zhang  X, Zhu  W, Zhang  J. Comparison of the incidence of colorectal cancer in young adults between the USA and Europe. Gut  2020;69 :1540–1542 31366454
17 Enwerem  N, Cho  MY, Demb  J, Earles  A, Heskett  KM, Liu  L  et al  Systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, and risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with young-onset colorectal adenoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol  2021;19 :680–689.e12 32428708
18 Page  MJ, McKenzie  JE, Bossuyt  PM, Boutron  I, Hoffmann  TC, Mulrow  CD  et al  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ  2021;372 :n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
19 Briggs  J . Critical Appraisal Tools. joannabriggs.org/critical-appraisal-tools (accessed 07 December 2022)
20 Aronson  M, Holter  S, Semotiuk  K, Winter  L, Pollett  A, Gallinger  S  et al  DNA mismatch repair status predicts need for future colorectal surgery for metachronous neoplasms in young individuals undergoing colorectal cancer resection. Dis Colon Rectum  2015;58 :645–652 26200678
21 Chen  FW, Yang  L, Cusumano  VT, Chong  MC, Lin  JK, Partida  D  et al  Early-onset colorectal cancer is associated with a lower risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia than traditional-onset colorectal cancer. Dig Dis Sci  2022;67 :1045–1053 33721159
22 Djursby  M, Madsen  MB, Frederiksen  JH, Berchtold  LA, Therkildsen  C, Willemoe  GL  et al  New pathogenic germline variants in very early onset and familial colorectal cancer patients. Front Genet  2020;11 :566266 33193653
23 Ikenaga  M, Tomita  N, Sekimoto  M, Ohue  M, Yamamoto  H, Miyake  Y  et al  Use of microsatellite analysis in young patients with colorectal cancer to identify those with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol  2002;79 :157–165 11870666
24 Kim  HG, Cho  YS, Cha  JM, Shin  JE, Kim  KO, Yang  HJ  et al  Risk of metachronous neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy in young patients with colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc  2018;87 :666–673 28619245
25 Kim  TJ, Kim  ER, Hong  SN, Chang  DK, Kim  YH. Long-term outcome and prognostic factors of sporadic colorectal cancer in young patients: a large institutional-based retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore)  2016;95 :e3641 27175682
26 Kim  SB, Lee  HJ, Park  SJ, Hong  SP, Cheon  JH, Kim  WH  et al  Comparison of colonoscopy surveillance outcomes between young and older colorectal cancer patients. J Cancer Prev  2017;22 :159–165 29018780
27 Klos  CL, Montenegro  G, Jamal  N, Wise  PE, Fleshman  JW, Safar  B  et al  Segmental versus extended resection for sporadic colorectal cancer in young patients. J Surg Oncol  2014;110 :328–332 24888987
28 Kozak  VN, Kalady  MF, Gamaleldin  MM, Liang  J, Church  JM. Colorectal surveillance after segmental resection for young-onset colorectal cancer: is there evidence for extended resection?  Colorectal Dis  2017;19 :O386–O392 28865167
29 Lee  JY, Park  HW, Kim  MJ, Lee  JS, Lee  HS, Chang  HS  et al  Prediction of the risk of a metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasm using a novel scoring system. Dig Dis Sci  2016;61 :3016–3025 27358228
30 Myers  EA, Feingold  DL, Forde  KA, Arnell  T, Jang  JH, Whelan  RL. Colorectal cancer in patients under 50 years of age: a retrospective analysis of two institutions’ experience. World J Gastroenterol  2013;19 :5651–5657 24039357
31 Parry  S, Win  AK, Parry  B, Macrae  FA, Gurrin  LC, Church  JM  et al  Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery. Gut  2011;60 :950–957 21193451
32 Samadder  NJ, Curtin  K, Wong  J, Tuohy  TM, Mineau  GP, Smith  KRet al  Epidemiology and familial risk of synchronous and metachronous colorectal cancer: a population-based study in Utah. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol  2014;12 :2078–2084.e2 24768809
33 Tian  Y, Xin  Y, Li  S. Risk stratification based on synchronous neoplasia and clinical physicochemical characteristics predicts a higher incidence of metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients undergoing colorectal resection for colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res  2020;12 :11295–11307 33177879
34 Tjaden  J, Muller  C, Wideroff  G, Ma  K, Satiya  J, Sussman  D  et al Metachronous advanced neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy in patients with young- vs older-onset of colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol  2021;19 :1967–1969 31351134
35 Win  AK, Parry  S, Parry  B, Kalady  MF, Macrae  FA, Ahnen  DJ  et al  Risk of metachronous colon cancer following surgery for rectal cancer in mismatch repair gene mutation carriers. Ann Surg Oncol  2013;20 :1829–1836 23358792
36 Jayasekara  H, Reece  JC, Buchanan  DD, Rosty  C, Dashti  SG, Ait Ouakrim  D  et al  Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer following a primary colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer  2016;139 :1081–1090 27098183
37 Zhang  Y, Karahalios  A, Aung  YK, Win  AK, Boussioutas  A, Jenkins  MA. Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following primary colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol  2023;23 :421 38036994
38 Perea  J, Gallagher  P, Delores  A. Lights and shadows in the early-onset colorectal cancer management and research: an integrative perspective—physician scientist with patient advocates. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol  2023;66 :101851 37852716
39 Al Maliki  H, Monahan  KJ. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopic surveillance following resection of early age onset colorectal cancer. United European Gastroenterol J  2024;12 :469–476
40 Eikenboom  EL, Moen  S, van Leerdam  ME, Papageorgiou  G, Doukas  M, Tanis  PJ  et al  Metachronous colorectal cancer risk according to Lynch syndrome pathogenic variant after extensive versus partial colectomy in the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol  2023;8 :1106–1117 37865103
41 Jayasekara  H, Reece  JC, Buchanan  DD, Ahnen  DJ, Parry  S, Jenkins  MA  et al  Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer or polyp: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol  2017;32 :301–326 27356122
42 Perea García  J, Arribas  J, Cañete  Á, García  JL, Álvaro  E, Tapial  S  et al  Association of polyps with early-onset colorectal cancer and throughout surveillance: novel clinical and molecular implications. Cancers (Basel)  2019;11 :1900 31795313
43 Rex  DK, Kahi  CJ, Levin  B, Smith  RA, Bond  JH, Brooks  D  et al  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin  2006;56 :160–167. quiz 185–6 16737948
44 Shitoh  K, Konishi  F, Miyakura  Y, Togashi  K, Okamoto  T, Nagai  H. Microsatellite instability as a marker in predicting metachronous multiple colorectal carcinomas after surgery: a cohort-like study. Dis Colon Rectum  2002;45 :329–333 12068189
45 Syngal  S, Brand  RE, Church  JM, Giardiello  FM, Hampel  HL, Burt  RW  et al  ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol  2015;110 :223–262. quiz 263 25645574
46 Monahan  KJ, Ryan  N, Monje-Garcia  L, Armstrong  R, Church  DN, Cook  J  et al  The English National Lynch Syndrome transformation project: an NHS Genomic Medicine Service Alliance (GMSA) programme. BMJ Oncology  2023;2 :e000124
