Skip to main content
Erschienen in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease 1/2024

Open Access 01.12.2024 | RESEARCH

Sidedness is not a prognostic factor in an unselected cohort of patients with colon cancer but prognosis for caecal carcinoma is worse – A multivariate analysis of a large single institution database

verfasst von: Sigmar Stelzner, Matthias Mehdorn, Erik Puffer, Dorothea Bleyl, Thomas Kittner, Philipp Rhode, Ines Gockel, Soeren T. Mees

Erschienen in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Ausgabe 1/2024

Abstract

Purpose

Sidedness has emerged as a prognostic factor for metastatic colorectal cancer treated with modern systemic therapies. This study investigates whether it is also relevant for an unselected patient cohort including all stages.

Methods

All consecutive patients admitted with colon cancer between 1995 and 2018 were retrieved from an institution-held database. Patients were divided into two cohorts. The first cohort included patients without distant metastases who were able to undergo curative resection. The second cohort presented with distant metastases (stage IV). Potentially prognostic factors were subjected to multivariate Cox Regression analysis.

Results

Overall, 1,606 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An R0-resection was achieved in 1,222 patients without distant metastases. Five-year cause-specific survival rate was 89.3% for this group. There was no difference between right- and left-sided cancers (88.2% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.220). However, prognosis of caecal carcinoma was significantly worse than that of all other sites combined (83.5% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, pT-category, pN-category, grading, vascular invasion, emergency operation, adjuvant chemotherapy, and caecal carcinoma remained as independent prognostic factors. In the 384 patients with stage IV-disease, 3-year overall survival for right- vs. left-sided cancers differed only in univariate analysis (17.7% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.013).

Conclusion

In non-metastatic colon cancer, location in the caecum is an independent prognostic factor. In unselected patients with stage IV colon cancer, sidedness was not found to be a prognostic factor. Differentiation into right- and left-sided tumors may be simplistic, and further studies on the biological behavior of different colonic sites are warranted.
Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00384-023-04590-8.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

With the introduction of modern targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), interest in the different outcomes of right- and left-sided tumors has been renewed [13]. These differences could be attributed to different molecular marker profiles [4], pathways of tumor development [5], and immunoresponse of the tumors [6]. The division of CRC into right- and left-sided tumors was established with the border of the embryologic midgut to the hindgut just proximal to the splenic flexure serving as the anatomic landmark. In these studies, no subdivisions of the various colonic segments were made, and colon and rectal cancers were usually investigated as a single entity. However, the rectum has several anatomical and functional features that distinguish it from the colon [7].
The concept of sidedness in CRC may be evident from the viewpoint of systemic therapy aimed at tumor metastases. It remains unclear whether this concept is also relevant for tumors at the outset, especially for stage I-III tumors, which are usually amenable to straight forward surgical resection. Additionally, it is unclear, whether the various colonic segments within the right or left side behave homogeneously, as presumed. The prognosis of tumors of the transverse colon, including the splenic flexure and descending colon, and thus entailing components of both sides has been reported to be inferior to that of the remaining colon [8]. Furthermore, the introduction of complete mesocolic excision (CME) by Hohenberger et al. provided a sound embryological concept for colon cancer surgery with an impact on outcomes [9, 10]. All these considerations require an in-depth investigation of the prognoses of different colonic segments.
This study aimed to investigate a large surgical database with respect to prognostic factors focusing solely on colon cancers (i.e., up to > 16 cm from the anal verge as defined by the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) [11]). We hypothesized that the prognosis would be different for right- and left-sided primary tumors, whereas the behavior of the segments within the sides would be homogenous.

Patients and methods

Patient selection

The prospective database of colorectal and anal carcinomas held at Dresden-Friedrichstadt General Hospital was searched for colon cancers treated between 1995 and 2018. All patients gave informed consent for data collection. According to national regulations, no formal approval of the responsible institutional review board was necessary for this kind of study.
Patients with histologically confirmed invasive colon adenocarcinomas were included. The exclusion criteria were tumors other than adenocarcinoma, carcinoma in situ, tumors without staging information, and carcinoma of the appendix. Colonic segments were documented according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) [12]. In patients with synchronous colon cancers in different segments, the most advanced cancer was selected for segment assignment. Similarly, in tumors involving more than one segment, the main mass was decisive for allocation. The right side of the colon was defined as cancer of the caecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, or transverse colon, whereas the left side included cancers from the splenic flexure to the sigmoid colon. Time of treatment was divided into two periods: 1995–2006 and 2007–2018. These intervals were chosen because CME was fully implemented in our colorectal unit from 2007 onwards. We further investigated UICC stages I-III tumors separately from stage IV tumors. In stage I-III tumors, the approach involves curative resection with only very few exceptions. To focus on prognosis following curative surgery, we excluded patients with locally resected tumors, patients after neoadjuvant therapy, patients with incomplete (R1/2) resection, and in-hospital mortality. Regarding the group of stage IV tumors, all patients were included in the analysis.

Investigated parameters

All potential prognostic factors available in the database were investigated considering essential and additional factors as proposed by Compton et al. [13], and high-risk factors as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) [14]. Age was dichotomized at the median. In addition to comparing right- and left-sided tumors we investigated the prognosis of each tumor location against the remaining cohort. T- and N-categories were analyzed separately next to UICC-stages. Number of harvested lymph nodes was divided into < 12 and ≥ 12 as recommended by the UICC. Well and moderately differentiated carcinomas were compared with poorly differentiated and undifferentiated tumors. The cut-off for the longitudinal length of the specimen was chosen to be at 20 cm, offering the potential for a 10 cm safety margin in both directions as an oncologically adequate operation. Sex, time period, preoperative CEA (normal vs. elevated), lymphovascular and vascular invasion, emergency surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy were also investigated. For stage IV tumors, the best available information was used to define the T- and N-categories. The number of harvested lymph nodes was omitted because of the large number of patients who did not undergo primary tumor resection. Similarly, there were too many missing values to examine lymphovascular and vascular invasion. Resection of the primary tumor (irrespective of metastasectomy), R-classification (comprising the primary tumor and the metastases; R0/1 vs. R2), and metastatic sites (liver/other/multiple) were also included.
Missing data were supplemented with multiple imputations.

Statistical analysis

Follow-up was performed in a specialized outpatient clinic as previously described [15]. Patients without information on death or actual life status at the 5-year point or at the closing date of the study (30th September 2021) were considered lost to follow-up. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier product limit method and compared with the log rank test. P-values were derived from tow-tailed tests and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. For patients with stage I-III disease, the 5-year cause specific survival (CSS) was calculated from the date of surgery, and death with tumor was defined as an event. Patients who survived longer than 60 months were censored at this time point. Similarly, patients who died from other causes and those who were lost to follow-up were censored on the date of the last available life status. For the calculation of recurrence free survival (RFS), death of any cause or diagnosis of locoregional or distant tumor recurrence was taken as event, whichever occurred first. For patients with stage IV disease, the 3-year overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of diagnosis. Death from any cause was considered as an event. Patients who survived longer than 3 years were censored at the 3-year threshold. Patients who were lost to follow-up within 3 years were also censored. Factors which displayed significant differences in the univariate analysis were included in the Cox regression analysis. Only UICC stages in stage I-III carcinoma were left out because of their direct interrelationship with pT- and pN-categories. The proportional hazards assumption was tested using log minus log plots. All statistical analysis were performed with SPSS® version 29 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Patient population-overview

Our database query retrieved 1,794 consecutive patients who were treated for histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the colon. After excluding appendiceal carcinoma (n = 27), carcinoma in situ (n = 56), and tumors without available staging information (n = 17), there remained 1,310 patients with stage I-III disease and 384 with synchronous metastases. While the latter were all included for further analysis, we excluded patients from the former group because of local resection (endoscopic or colotomy, n = 14), neoadjuvant treatment (n = 12), incomplete gross resection (R2, n = 11), incomplete microscopic resection (R1, n = 7), and in-hospital mortality (n = 44). Thus, n = 1,222 patients with stage I-III disease were further analyzed (Fig. 1).

Stage I-III tumors

This group comprised 655 male and 567 female patients of a median age (range) of 70 (25–97) years. Follow-up was complete in 98.3% (21 patients lost) with a median time to the last follow-up (surviving patients) of 10.2 years. The stage distribution was as follows: stage I n = 316 (25.9%), stage II n = 537 (43.9%), stage III n = 369 (30.2%). We found 555 (45.4%) right- and 667 (54.6%) left-sided tumors with 172 (14.1%) caecal carcinomas in the first group. Tumor stages differed somewhat in various locations; however, stage III tumors were almost equally distributed (range 25.0%-33.3%; Table 1). We observed 115 events within the first 5 years of follow-up. The five-year CSS did not differ between the two sides (right-sided 88.2%, left-sided 90.1%, p = 0.220, Fig. 2), but tumors located in the caecum displayed a significantly worse prognosis (83.5% vs. 90.2% (all other tumor sites), p = 0.007, Fig. 3). Age, pT-category, pN-category, grading, preoperative CEA-level, lymphovascular invasion, vascular invasion, emergency operation and adjuvant chemotherapy were all significantly associated with 5-year CSS (Table 2). In the multivariate analysis, pT-category, pN-category, grading, vascular invasion, emergency operation, adjuvant chemotherapy, and caecal carcinoma remained independent factors (Table 3).
Table 1
Distribution of UICC-stages across the colonic locations
 
Stage I (%)
Stage II (%)
Stage III (%)
Caecum
30 (17.4)
85 (49.4)
57 (33.1)
Ascendens
57 (26.4)
96 (44.4)
63 (29.2)
Hepatic flexure
12 (17.6)
39 (57.4)
17 (25.0)
Transversum
23 (23.2)
46 (46.5)
30 (30.3)
Splenic flexure
13 (18.1)
35 (48.6)
24 (33.3)
Descendens
14 (23.0)
29 (47.5)
18 (29.5)
Sigmoid
167 (31.3)
207 (38.8)
160 (30.0)
Total
316 (25.9)
537 (43.9)
369 (30.2)
Table 2
Five-year cause specific survival rates for stage I-III colon carcinoma
 
n (%)
Events
5y cause-specific survival in % [95% CI (%)]
p
Total
1222
115
89.3 [87.3 … 91.3]
 
Agea
   
0.027
    <70
587 (48.0)
48
91.2 [88.8 … 93.6]
 
    ≥70
635 (52.0)
67
87.2 [84.3 … 90.1]
 
Sex
   
0.476
    Male
655 (53.6)
58
89.6 [87.1 … 92.1]
 
    Female
567 (46.4)
57
88.8 [86.1 … 91.5]
 
Side
   
0.22
    Right
555 (45.4)
57
88.2 [85.3 … 91.1]
 
    Left
667 (54.6)
58
90.1 [87.7 … 92.5]
 
Locationb
    
    Caecum
172 (14.1)
25
83.5 [77.6 … 89.4] vs. 90.2 [88.2 … 92.2]
0.007
    Ascendens
216 (17.7)
14
92.0 [87.9 … 96.1] vs. 88.7 [86.5 … 90.9]
0.147
    Hepatic flexure
68 ( 5.6)
8
87.3 [79.1 … 95.5] vs. 89.4 [87.4 … 91.4]
0.43
    Transversum
99 ( 8.1)
10
88.8 [82.3 … 95.3] vs. 89.3 [87.3 … 91.3]
0.812
    Splenic flexure
72 ( 5.9)
4
93.3 [86.8 … 99.8] vs. 89.0 [87.0 … 91.0]
0.254
    Descendens
61 ( 5.0)
4
93.0 [86.3 … 99.7] vs. 89.1 [87.1 … 91.1]
0.493
    Sigmoid
534 (43.7)
50
89.4 [86.7 … 92.1] vs. 89.2 [86.7 … 91.7]
0.702
Time period
   
0.865
    1995-2006
684 (56.0)
68
89.0 [86.5 … 91.5]
 
    2007-2018
538 (44.0)
47
89.8 [87.1 … 92.5]
 
UICC-stage
   
<0.001
    I
316 (25.9)
5
98.2 [96.6 … 99.8]
 
    II
537 (43.9)
31
93.2 [90.8 … 95.6]
 
    III
369 (30.2)
79
75.3 [70.6 … 80.0]
 
pT-Category
   
<0.001
    1
129 (10.6)
3
97.4 [94.5 … 100]
 
    2
236 (19.3)
4
98.0 [96.0 … 100]
 
    3
754 (61.7)
72
88.9 [86.5 … 91.3]
 
    4
103 ( 8.4)
36
58.3 [47.7 … 68.9]
 
pN-Category
   
<0.001
   0
853 (69.8)
36
95.1 [93.5 … 96.7]
 
   1
257 (21.0)
42
80.9 [75.6 … 86.2]
 
   2
112 ( 9.2)
37
62.4 [52.6 … 72.2]
 
Number of harvested lymph nodes
   
0.301
    < 12
285 (23.3)
22
90.9 [87.2 … 94.6]
 
    ≥ 12
937 (76.7)
93
88.8 [86.6 … 91.0]
 
Grading
   
<0.001
    1+2
915 (74.9)
61
92.2 [90.2 … 94.2]
 
    3+4
307 (25.1)
54
80.3 [75.6 … 85.0]
 
Mucinous carcinoma
   
0.129
    No
1115 (91.2)
101
89.6 [87.6 … 91.6]
 
    Yes 
107 ( 8.8)
14
85.1 [77.8 … 92.4]
 
Preoperative CEA
   
0.002
    Normal
946 (77.4)
76
90.8 [88.8 … 92.8]
 
    Elevated
276 (22.6)
39
83.8 [79.1 … 88.5]
 
Lymphovascular infiltration
   
<0.001
    No
971 (79.5)
60
92.9 [91.1 … 94.7]
 
    Yes
251 (20.5)
55
74.6 [68.7 … 80.5]
 
Vascular infiltration
   
<0.001
    No
1088 (89.0)
86
91.0 [89.2 … 92.8]
 
    Yes
134 (11.0)
29
74.6 [66.4 … 82.8]
 
Emergency operation
   
<0.001
    No
1083 (88.6)
90
90.6 [88.6 … 92.6]
 
    Yes
139 (11.4)
25
77.9 [70.1 … 85.7]
 
Adjuvant chemotherapy
   
0.025
    No
998 (81.7)
83
90.4 [88.4 … 92.4]
 
    Yes
224 (18.3)
32
84.7 [79.8 … 89.6]
 
Length of specimen
   
0.294
    < 20 cm
148 (13.8)
10
91.6 [86.5 … 96.7]
 
    ≥ 20 cm
1074 (86.2)
115
88.9 [86.9 … 90.9]
 
Missing values supplemented by multiple imputation: preoperative CEA, n = 6; lymphovascular invasion, n = 21; vascular invasion, n = 26; length of specimen, n = 24
 CI confidence interval
amedian 70 (range 25–97) years
b5-year CCS is compared vs. all other locations
Table 3
Cox regression analysis for 5-year cause-specific survival in stage I-III colon carcinoma
 
Hazard Ratio
95 % CI
p
Age
   
    <70
Ref.
  
    ≥70
1.139
0.748 … 1.736
0.544
Location
   
    All other sites
Ref.
  
    Caecum
1.645
1.039 … 2.606
0.034
pT-Category
  
<0.001
    T1+2
Ref.
  
    T3
3.253
1.466 … 7.217
0.004
    T4
10.852
4.538 … 25.950
<0.001
pN-Category
  
<0.001
    N0
Ref.
  
    N1
4.238
2.516 … 7.137
<0.001
    N2
8.364
4.623 … 15.130
<0.001
Grading
   
    1+2
Ref.
  
    3+4
1.516
1.017 … 2.259
0.041
Preoperative CEA
   
    Normal
Ref.
  
    Elevated
0.929
0.618 … 1.398
0.724
Lymphovascular infiltration
   
    No
Ref.
  
    Yes
1.255
0.795 … 1.981
0.724
Vascular infiltration
   
    No
Ref.
  
    Yes
1.95
1.235 … 3.079
0.004
Emergency operation
   
    No
Ref.
  
    Yes
1.651
1.031 … 2.644
0.037
Adjuvant chemotherapy
   
    No
Ref.
  
    Yes
0.385
0.234 … 0.634
<0.001
CI confidence interval
Analysis of prognostic factors was repeated for patients with stage III disease. Again, sidedness was not associated with prognosis, but carcinoma of the caecum remained as independent prognostic factor in the multivariate analysis as well as pT-category, pN-category, vascular invasion, and chemotherapy (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). Regarding RFS, age and emergency operation emerged as independent prognostic factors, whereas neither sidedness nor any sublocation of the colon was associated with prognosis (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4).

Stage IV tumors

We identified 205 males and 179 females (median age: 71 (range 30–95) years) who presented with distant metastases at the time of tumor diagnosis. Eight patients (2.1%) were lost to follow-up. The median follow-up time for surviving patients was 6.3 years. Approximately half of the patients with stage IV disease had liver metastases only (n = 176, 45.8%), whereas in 111 (28.9%) patients multiple sites were involved. In 87 (22.6%) of these patients, complete removal of the primary tumor and the metastases was achieved (78 R0 resections (20.3%) and nine R1 resections (2.3%)). A further 206 (53.6%) patients underwent surgery for their primary tumor. In total, 287 events were observed during the first 3 years post-diagnosis. Right-sided tumors (n = 169 (44.0%)) had a significantly worse prognosis with 17.7% 3-year OS than left-sided tumors (n = 215 (56.0%)) with 28.6% 3-year OS (p = 0.013; Fig. 4). Patients with caecal carcinoma (n = 37 (9.6%)) had the worst prognosis (13.5% vs. 24.9% (all other locations) 3-year OS, p = 0.007; Fig. 5). The results differed also by time period with 3-year OS of 19.6% in 1995–2006 and 28.7% in 2007–2018 (p = 0.048). As expected, the best results were achieved after complete tumor removal (R0/R1-resections) with 3-year OS of 66.6% (vs. 10.7% for R2, p < 0.001). R0/R1-resections were achieved in n = 44/176 (25.0%) patients with liver metastases only compared to n = 33/97 (34.0%) patients with metastases at other single sites (mainly para-aortal lymph nodes, lung, or peritoneum) and n = 10/111 (9.0) patients with involvement of multiple sites. According to metastatic site, liver metastases showed a more favorable prognosis with a 30.5% 3-year OS (vs. 22.2% in other metastases and 14.5% in multiple sites (p < 0.001)). Systemic therapy was also associated with a better prognosis (32.7% 3-year OS vs. 17.7% (p < 0.001)) (Table 4). In multivariate analysis, T4-category, grading, removal of the primary tumor, R-classification, and systemic therapy were identified as independent prognostic factors (Table 5).
Table 4
Three-year overall survival rates for stage IV colon carcinoma
 
n (%)
Events
3y overall survival in % [95% CI (%)]
p
Total
384
287
23.8 [19.5 … 28.1]
 
Agea
   
<0.001
    <71
181 (47.1)
125
29.5 [22.6 … 36.4]
 
    ≥71
203 (52.9)
162
18.6 [13.1 … 24.1]
 
Sex
   
0.082
    Male
205 (53.4)
147
26.4 [20.1 … 32.7]
 
    Female
179 (46.6)
140
20.8 [14.7 … 26.9]
 
Side
   
0.013
    Right
169 (44.0)
136
17.7 [11.8 … 23.6]
 
    Left
215 (56.0)
151
28.6 [22.5 … 34.7]
 
Locationb
    
    Coecum
37 ( 9.6)
32
13.5 [ 2.5 … 24.5] 24.9 [13.9 … 35.9]
0.007
    Ascendens
63 (16.4)
51
13.4 [ 4.4 … 22.4] 25.6 [20.7 … 30.5]
0.181
    Hepatic flexure
38 ( 9.9)
32
15.8 [ 4.2 … 27.4] 24.7 [20.0 … 29.4]
0.146
    Transversum
31 ( 8.1)
21
32.3 [15.8 … 48.8] 23.0 [18.5 … 27.5]
0.219
    Splenic flexure
23 ( 6.0)
14
39.1 [22.6 … 55.6] 22.8 [18.4 … 27.1]
0.096
    Descendens
24 ( 6.2)
15
37.0 [17.4 … 56.6] 22.9 [18.4 … 27.4]
0.318
    Sigmoid
168 (43.8)
122
26.0 [19.3 … 32.7] 22.0 [16.3 … 27.7]
0.289
Time period
   
0.048
    1995-2006
203 (52.9)
161
19.6 [14.1 … 25.1]
 
    2007-2018
181 (47.1)
126
28.7 [22.0 … 35.4]
 
T-Category
   
<0.001
    1+2c
14 ( 3.6)
8
40.2 [13.5 … 66.9]
 
    3
247 (64.3)
168
30.1 [24.2 … 36.0]
 
    4
123 (32.0)
111
9.4 [ 4.1 … 14.7]
 
N-Category
   
0.005
    0
115 (29.9)
90
20.5 [13.1 … 27.9]
 
    1
123 (32.0)
84
29.8 [21.6 … 38.0]
 
    2
146 (38.0)
113
21.1 [14.4 … 27.8]
 
Grading
   
<0.001
    1+2
223 (58.1)
155
29.0 [22.9 … 35.1]
 
    3+4
161 (41.9)
132
16.5 [10.6 … 22.4]
 
Mucinous carcinoma
   
0.182
    No
346 (90.1)
256
24.8 [20.1 … 29.5]
 
    Yes
38 (9.9)
31
14.1 [ 2.7 … 25.5]
 
Pretherapeutic CEA
   
0.809
    Normal
122 (31.8)
88
25.5 [17.7 … 33.3]
 
    Elevated
262 (68.2)
199
23.1 [18.0 … 28.2]
 
Removal of primary tumor
   
<0.001
    No
91 (23.7)
86
0
 
    Yes 
293 (76.3)
201
30.6 [25.3 … 35.9]
 
Emergency operation
   
< 0.001
    No operation
21 (5.5)
17
0
 
    Emergency
87 (22.6)
76
12.6 [ 5.5 … 19.7]
 
    No emergency
276 (71.9)
194
28.6 [23.1 … 34.1]
 
R-classification
   
<0.001
    0+1
87 (22.6)
29
66.6 [56.6 … 76.6]
 
    2
297 (77.4)
258
10.7 [ 7.0 … 14.4]
 
Metastatic site
   
<0.001
    Liver
176 (45.8)
119
30.5 [23.6 … 37.4]
 
    Other
97 (25.3)
74
22.2 [13.8 … 30.6]
 
    Multiple
111 (28.9)
94
14.5 [ 7.8 … 21.2]
 
Systemic therapy
   
<0.001
    No
229 (59.6)
184
17.7 [12.6 … 22.8]
 
    Yes
155 (60.4)
103
32.7 [25.3 … 40.1]
 
Missing values supplemented by multiple imputation: grading, n = 10; pretherapeutic CEA, n = 5
CI confidence interval
amedian 71 (range 30 – 95) years
b3-year OS is compared vs. all other locations
cT1 and T2 were combined because of low numbers
Table 5
Cox regression analysis for 3-year overall survival in stage IV colon carcinoma
 
Hazard Ratio
95 % CI
p
Age
   
    <71
Ref.
  
    ≥71
0.988
0.753 … 1.296
0.988
Side
   
    Right
Ref.
  
    Left
1.086
0.831 … 1.421
0.545
Location
   
    All other sites
Ref.
  
    Caecum
0.836
0.551 … 1.268
0.399
Time period
   
    1995-2006
Ref.
  
    2007-2018
1.01
0.783 … 1.301
0.94
T-Category
  
0.014
    T1+2
Ref.
  
    T3
1.291
0.621 … 2.684
0.493
    T4
1.889
0.882 … 4.044
0.102
Grading
   
    1+2
Ref.
  
    3+4
1.573
1.219 … 2.031
<0.001
Removal of primary tumor
   
    No
Ref.
  
    Yes
0.557
0.417 … 0.743
<0.001
Emergency operation
  
0.139
    No operation
Ref.
  
    Emergency
1.135
0.627 …2.054
0.675
    No emergency
1.493
0.790 … 2.824
0.217
R-classification
   
    0/1
Ref.
  
    2
5.976
3.910 … 9.133
<0.001
Metastatic site
  
0.172
    Liver
Ref.
  
    Other
1.247
0.890 … 1.746
0.199
    Multiple
1.303
0.978 … 1.737
0.071
Systemic therapy
   
    No
Ref.
  
    Yes
0.43
0.320 … 0.578
<0.001
CI confidence interval

Discussion

Inhomogeneity of prognosis

Our study reveals that different parts of the colon are associated with different prognoses of cancer and that dividing the colon into right and left may be arbitrary. In the univariate analysis, no distinct pattern of prognosis was observed according to the colonic site. Especially in stages I-III, cancers of the ascending colon displayed an equally good prognosis as cancers of the splenic flexure and descending colon. Cancers of the right flexure and transverse colon resembled sigmoid cancers with respect to prognosis, and only caecal cancers stood out with a somewhat worse prognosis. The latter remained its prognostic value after adjusting for all potentially important factors in the multivariate Cox regression model. These findings are supported by the study of Benedix et al. who showed significant differences between the colonic subsites according to tumor stage, grading and the proportion of mucinous tumors [16]. The tumor stage did not follow a clear right/left pattern but showed, for instance, more advanced tumors in the caecum and less advanced tumors in the ascending colon. Similarly, Jess et al. observed a different pattern of prognosis for different tumor subsites in a nationwide cohort study that included 23,487 patients [17]. Tumors of the splenic flexure exhibited the highest relative mortality. Although this pattern does not fully comply with our results, it shows that differences exist that cannot be explained by the division of the colon into right and left.

Sidedness in relation to stages I-III

The importance of sidedness in stage I-III CRC has not uniformly been reported in the literature [1824]. Li et al. investigated a large patient series from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database [25]. In 238,826 patients, they found a better 5-year CSS in patients with right-sided tumors in stages I and II (HR 1.091 for left colon cancer). The clinical significance of this difference was low (88.9% vs. 87.0%, respectively). More importantly, they found a significant and clinically meaningful difference in survival in stage III with an HR of 0.799 for the left colon. Another study used the same data pool and reached similar results only 2 years later [26]. Interestingly, more T4- and N2- tumors were found in right-sided cancers, thus disadvantaging stages II and III. In contrast, other studies have explored the SEER database using propensity score-matched analysis [27, 28]. The better prognosis for left colon tumors, especially in stage III, disappeared after matching, suggesting external co-factors, such as fecal transit time, differences in the microbiome, and different clinical presentation. Moreover, the results for stage III may reflect the tumor response to systemic therapy because on the one hand adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage III colon cancer, while on the other hand stage III cancer is prone to distant recurrence for which systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Accordingly, Kennecke et al. demonstrated that sidedness was not a prognosticator for relapse-free survival in stage III tumors, however, once relapse occurred, the prognosis was inferior for right-sided cancers [29]. We did not find a significant difference between right- and left-sided stage III cancers, but adjuvant chemotherapy remained an independent prognostic factor in Cox regression analysis. Another large study explored the relevance of sidedness in a national database with regard to OS [30]. It used both direct and propensity score-matched analyses and found inferior outcomes for right-sided cancers in all tests. These differences disappeared only in patients with ≥ 22 harvested lymph nodes. The authors concluded that the adequacy of tumor resection might be decisive for the outcome differences in right- and left-sided cancers.
The largest study on this topic comprising some 1.4 million patients, was published by Petrelli et al. [31]. They performed a meta-analysis of 66 studies and provided HR for survival, showing inferior results for right-sided colon cancer across all stages. However, their ability to control for confounders was limited, and they only displayed results for OS. Because patients with right-sided cancer are, on average, older than those with left-sided cancer [16, 17, 25, 27], OS does not provide an unbiased measure of cancer survival, at least in stages I-III [20].

Sidedness in relation to stage IV

Our multivariate analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in sidedness or time period in patients with stage IV disease. Instead, “classic” prognostic factors such as R-classification, T-category, grading, primary tumor resection, and application of systemic therapy remained in the model. This can be attributed mainly to inherent inhomogeneity of this patient group with very different tumor loads. Approximately one-quarter of patients underwent surgery with curative intention (R0/R1), indicating an oligometastatic state with a more favorable prognosis. Systemic therapy was also associated with better prognosis; thus, modern treatment options are clearly important prognostic factors in a non-selected stage IV patient cohort. We recently demonstrated that 30.6% of patients with synchronous metastases of CRC can undergo treatment with curative intent, with an OS of 53.0% at 5 years [32]. Similarly, Merkel et al. investigated the improvement in prognosis over time in a cohort of 937 patients who underwent primary tumor resection from the Erlangen Registry for Colorectal Carcinomas [33]. They found an increase in 2-year OS from 25.9% to 55.6% for the time periods 1985–1994 compared to 2005–2014. There were many more patients with unfavorable metastatic patterns in the right-sided tumor group, with 32.0% M1c tumors indicating peritoneal metastases (vs. 14.4% in left-sided tumors). In their multivariate Cox regression model, sidedness remained a prognostic factor for right-sided cancers with an HR of 1.2 (p = 0.012). The greater power and more homogenous patient group (excluding all patients with stage IV who could not undergo primary tumor resection as a positive selection) may explain this result.
The importance of sidedness as a prognosticator was established in patient cohorts including synchronous and metachronous metastases. These patients were usually not amenable to metastatectomy and were included in studies investigating new treatment agents, particularly cetuximab and bevacizumab [3436]. In this scenario, RAS and BRAF mutation status has been proven to be of prognostic and predictive importance [37]. Several studies have shown that anti-EGFR therapy is less effective in metastases deriving from right-sided than from left-sided cancers even in RAS-wild-type tumors [2, 38]. Obviously, the more the patient selection process advances, the greater the importance of sidedness as a prognostic factor for metastatic CRC. However, the temporal and spatial multistep development of primary cancer and metastases regarding the evolution of cancer cell clones and their interaction with the tumor microenvironment are not yet fully understood [39, 40]. It may well be that the identification of all factors and their interaction in this complex tumorigenesis will result in individual tumor pathways that occur in different proportions at different sites in the colon. Some studies have suggested this direction [4143].
The strength of our study is the large number of patients treated at a single institution with high-quality follow-up. The 5-year CSS rates compare favorably with those in the literature, with a rate of 89.3% for all stage I-III patients (88.2% for right-sided and 90.1% for left-sided tumors). For patients with stage III disease, the corresponding survival rates are 72.6% and 77.4%, respectively. Warschkow et al. calculated a 5-year CSS of 79.8% (right side) and 82.9% (left side) for all stage I-III patients from the SEER database and 63.6% (right side) and 64.6% (left side) for stage III patients [27]. A recent study by Merkel et al. showed a better survival rate in a stage I-III patient cohort in which prognostically favorable T1 carcinomas were excluded (89.3%) [44].
Our study harbors some limitations that need to be addressed. First, unlike large registry-based studies, we investigated a medium-sized patient cohort. Therefore, the results generated for the colon subsites must be interpreted with caution. Second, some prognostic factors of interest such as perineural invasion or RAS mutational status, were not completely documented or available over time and could therefore not be meaningfully investigated. This is counterbalanced by the overall high quality of the documented parameters and the low rate of missing data. Third, the type of adjuvant chemotherapy, generally based on 5-fluorouracil with a growing proportion of patients who received oxaliplatin, was not documented in our database. Hence the role of adjuvant chemotherapy could not be investigated in more detail. Fourth, in stage IV disease, we failed to identify sidedness as a prognostic factor even if we restricted our analysis to those patients who were not able to undergo metastatectomy (data not shown). Various factors including the long time period of observation, different tumor loads as mentioned above, and the evolving role of defering primary tumor resection [45] may have contributed to these results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our hypothesis was not supported. In patients without distant metastases, location in the caecum, but not sidedness per se, was identified as an independent prognostic factor. Similarly, the tumor side did not emerge as an independent prognostic factor in stage IV patients. Rather, it seems that different parts of the colon display tumor stages, molecular profiles, and other features in different proportions, and let sidedness appear as a surrogate for prognosis in some investigations. Therefore, further studies on the biological behavior of different colonic sites are warranted.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Lisa Domichowski and Anja Willing, Medical Data Managers, for their support with data acquisition.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Anhänge
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Loupakis F, Yang D, Yau L, Feng S, Cremolini C, Zhang W, Maus MK, Antoniotti C, Langer C, Scherer SJ, Müller T, Hurwitz HI, Saltz L, Falcone A, Lenz HJ (2015) Primary tumor location as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 107:dju427 Loupakis F, Yang D, Yau L, Feng S, Cremolini C, Zhang W, Maus MK, Antoniotti C, Langer C, Scherer SJ, Müller T, Hurwitz HI, Saltz L, Falcone A, Lenz HJ (2015) Primary tumor location as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 107:dju427
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Arnold D, Lueza B, Douillard JY, Peeters M, Lenz HJ, Venook A, Heinemann V, Van Cutsem E, Pignon JP, Tabernero J, Cervantes A, Ciardiello F (2017) Prognostic and predictive value of primary tumour side in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and EGFR directed antibodies in six randomized trials. Ann Oncol 28:1713–1729CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Arnold D, Lueza B, Douillard JY, Peeters M, Lenz HJ, Venook A, Heinemann V, Van Cutsem E, Pignon JP, Tabernero J, Cervantes A, Ciardiello F (2017) Prognostic and predictive value of primary tumour side in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and EGFR directed antibodies in six randomized trials. Ann Oncol 28:1713–1729CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Holch JW, Ricard I, Stintzing S, Modest DP, Heinemann V (2017) The relevance of primary tumour location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 70:87–98CrossRefPubMed Holch JW, Ricard I, Stintzing S, Modest DP, Heinemann V (2017) The relevance of primary tumour location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 70:87–98CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat LaPointe LC, Dunne R, Brown GS, Worthley DL, Molloy PL, Wattchow D, Young GP (2008) Map of differential transcript expression in the normal human large intestine. Physiol Genomics 33:50–64CrossRefPubMed LaPointe LC, Dunne R, Brown GS, Worthley DL, Molloy PL, Wattchow D, Young GP (2008) Map of differential transcript expression in the normal human large intestine. Physiol Genomics 33:50–64CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Nguyen LH, Goel A, Chung DC (2020) Pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology 158:291–302CrossRefPubMed Nguyen LH, Goel A, Chung DC (2020) Pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology 158:291–302CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee MS, Menter DG, Kopetz S (2017) Right versus left colon cancer biology: Integrating the Consensus Molecular Subtypes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15:411–419CrossRefPubMed Lee MS, Menter DG, Kopetz S (2017) Right versus left colon cancer biology: Integrating the Consensus Molecular Subtypes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15:411–419CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Tamas K, Walenkamp AM, de Vries EG, van Vugt MA, Beets-Tan RG, van Etten B, de Groot DJ, Hospers GA (2015) Rectal and colon cancer: Not just a different anatomic site. Cancer Treat Rev 41:671–679CrossRefPubMed Tamas K, Walenkamp AM, de Vries EG, van Vugt MA, Beets-Tan RG, van Etten B, de Groot DJ, Hospers GA (2015) Rectal and colon cancer: Not just a different anatomic site. Cancer Treat Rev 41:671–679CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Sjo OH, Lunde OC, Nygaard K, Sandvik L, Nesbakken A (2008) Tumour location is a prognostic factor for survival in colonic cancer patients. Colorectal Dis 10:33–40CrossRefPubMed Sjo OH, Lunde OC, Nygaard K, Sandvik L, Nesbakken A (2008) Tumour location is a prognostic factor for survival in colonic cancer patients. Colorectal Dis 10:33–40CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, Papadopoulos T, Merkel S (2009) Standardised surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision (CME) and central ligation – technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis 11:354–364CrossRefPubMed Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, Papadopoulos T, Merkel S (2009) Standardised surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision (CME) and central ligation – technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis 11:354–364CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Merkel S, Weber K, Matzel KE, Agaimy A, Göhl J, Hohenberger W (2016) Prognosis of patients with colonic carcinoma before, during and after implementation of complete mesocolic excision. Br J Surg 1031220–1229 Merkel S, Weber K, Matzel KE, Agaimy A, Göhl J, Hohenberger W (2016) Prognosis of patients with colonic carcinoma before, during and after implementation of complete mesocolic excision. Br J Surg 1031220–1229
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Wittekind C, Brierley JD, Lee A, van Eycken E (2019) TNM Supplement: a commentary on uniform use, 5th edn. Wiley Blackwell, OxfordCrossRef Wittekind C, Brierley JD, Lee A, van Eycken E (2019) TNM Supplement: a commentary on uniform use, 5th edn. Wiley Blackwell, OxfordCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization (2019) International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) – 3rd ed., 2nd revision World Health Organization (2019) International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) – 3rd ed., 2nd revision
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Compton C (2006) Colorectal Cancer. In: Gospodarowicz MK, O`Sullivan B, Sobin LH (eds). Prognostic factors in cancer. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, New Jersey, pp 134–137 Compton C (2006) Colorectal Cancer. In: Gospodarowicz MK, O`Sullivan B, Sobin LH (eds). Prognostic factors in cancer. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, New Jersey, pp 134–137
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischer J, Hellmich G, Jackisch T, Puffer E, Zimmer J, Bleyl D, Kittner T, Witzigmann H, Stelzner S (2015) Outcome for stage II and III rectal and colon cancer equally good after treatment improvement over three decades. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:797–806CrossRefPubMed Fischer J, Hellmich G, Jackisch T, Puffer E, Zimmer J, Bleyl D, Kittner T, Witzigmann H, Stelzner S (2015) Outcome for stage II and III rectal and colon cancer equally good after treatment improvement over three decades. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:797–806CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Benedix F, Schmidt U, Mroczkowski P, Gastinger I, Lippert H, Kube R (2011) Colon carcinoma—classification into right and left sided cancer or according to colonic subsite? Analysis of 29,568 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:134–139CrossRefPubMed Benedix F, Schmidt U, Mroczkowski P, Gastinger I, Lippert H, Kube R (2011) Colon carcinoma—classification into right and left sided cancer or according to colonic subsite? Analysis of 29,568 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:134–139CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Jess P, Hansen IO, Gamborg M, Jess T; Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2013) A nationwide Danish cohort study challenging the categorisation into right-sided and left-sided colon cancer. BMJ Open 3:e002608CrossRef Jess P, Hansen IO, Gamborg M, Jess T; Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2013) A nationwide Danish cohort study challenging the categorisation into right-sided and left-sided colon cancer. BMJ Open 3:e002608CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Meguid RA, Slidell MB, Wolfgang CL, Chang DC, Ahuja N (2008) Is there a difference in survival between right- versus left-sided colon cancers? Ann Surg Oncol 15:2388–2394CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Meguid RA, Slidell MB, Wolfgang CL, Chang DC, Ahuja N (2008) Is there a difference in survival between right- versus left-sided colon cancers? Ann Surg Oncol 15:2388–2394CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Weiss JM, Pfau PR, O’Connor ES, King J, LoConte N, Kennedy G (2011) Smith MA (2011) Mortality by stage for right- versus left-sided colon cancer: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results–Medicare data. J Clin Oncol 29:4401–4409CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Weiss JM, Pfau PR, O’Connor ES, King J, LoConte N, Kennedy G (2011) Smith MA (2011) Mortality by stage for right- versus left-sided colon cancer: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results–Medicare data. J Clin Oncol 29:4401–4409CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Brungs D, Aghmesheh M, de Souza P, Ng W, Chua W, Carolan M, Clingan P, Healey E, Rose J, Tubaro T, Ranson M (2017) Sidedness is prognostic in locoregional colon cancer: an analysis of 9509 Australian patients. BMC Cancer 17:251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Brungs D, Aghmesheh M, de Souza P, Ng W, Chua W, Carolan M, Clingan P, Healey E, Rose J, Tubaro T, Ranson M (2017) Sidedness is prognostic in locoregional colon cancer: an analysis of 9509 Australian patients. BMC Cancer 17:251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Benedix F, Kube R, Meyer F, Schmidt U, Gastinger I, Lippert H; Colon/Rectum Carcinomas (Primary Tumor) Study Group (2010) Comparison of 17,641 patients with right- and left-sided colon cancer: differences in epidemiology, perioperative course, histology, and survival. Dis Colon Rectum 53:57–64CrossRef Benedix F, Kube R, Meyer F, Schmidt U, Gastinger I, Lippert H; Colon/Rectum Carcinomas (Primary Tumor) Study Group (2010) Comparison of 17,641 patients with right- and left-sided colon cancer: differences in epidemiology, perioperative course, histology, and survival. Dis Colon Rectum 53:57–64CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Klose J, Kloor M, Warschkow R, Antony P, Liesenfeld LF, Büchler MW, Schneider M, Tarantino I (2021) Does side really matter? Survival analysis among patients with right- versus left-sided colon cancer: a propensity score-adjusted analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 28:2768–2778aCrossRefPubMed Klose J, Kloor M, Warschkow R, Antony P, Liesenfeld LF, Büchler MW, Schneider M, Tarantino I (2021) Does side really matter? Survival analysis among patients with right- versus left-sided colon cancer: a propensity score-adjusted analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 28:2768–2778aCrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Malakorn S, Ouchi A, Hu CY, Sandhu L, Dasari A, You YN, Kopetz ES, Ellis LM, Chang GJ (2021) Tumor sidedness, recurrence, and survival after curative resection of localized colon cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 20:e53–e60CrossRefPubMed Malakorn S, Ouchi A, Hu CY, Sandhu L, Dasari A, You YN, Kopetz ES, Ellis LM, Chang GJ (2021) Tumor sidedness, recurrence, and survival after curative resection of localized colon cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 20:e53–e60CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Sinicrope FA, Chakrabarti S, Laurent-Puig P, Huebner L, Smyrk TC, Tabernero J, Mini E, Goldberg RM, Zaanan A, Folprecht G, Van Laethem JL, Le Malicot K, Shi Q, Alberts SR, Taieb J (2021) Prognostic variables in low and high risk stage III colon cancers treated in two adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Eur J Cancer 144:101–112CrossRefPubMed Sinicrope FA, Chakrabarti S, Laurent-Puig P, Huebner L, Smyrk TC, Tabernero J, Mini E, Goldberg RM, Zaanan A, Folprecht G, Van Laethem JL, Le Malicot K, Shi Q, Alberts SR, Taieb J (2021) Prognostic variables in low and high risk stage III colon cancers treated in two adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Eur J Cancer 144:101–112CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Li Y, Feng Y, Dai W, Li Q, Cai S, Peng J (2019) Prognostic effect of tumor sidedness in colorectal cancer: a SEER-based analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer 18:e104–e116CrossRefPubMed Li Y, Feng Y, Dai W, Li Q, Cai S, Peng J (2019) Prognostic effect of tumor sidedness in colorectal cancer: a SEER-based analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer 18:e104–e116CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Ulanja MB, Rishi M, Beutler BD, Sharma M, Patterson DR, Gullapalli N, Ambika S (2019) Colon cancer sidedness, presentation, and survival at different stages. J Oncol 2019:4315032CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ulanja MB, Rishi M, Beutler BD, Sharma M, Patterson DR, Gullapalli N, Ambika S (2019) Colon cancer sidedness, presentation, and survival at different stages. J Oncol 2019:4315032CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Warschkow R, Sulz MC, Marti L, Tarantino I, Schmied BM, Cerny T, Güller U (2016) Better survival in right-sided versus left-sided stage I-III colon cancer patients. BMC Cancer 16:554CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Warschkow R, Sulz MC, Marti L, Tarantino I, Schmied BM, Cerny T, Güller U (2016) Better survival in right-sided versus left-sided stage I-III colon cancer patients. BMC Cancer 16:554CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang ZS, Wu JW, Li Y, Lin YH, Li XY. Effect of sidedness on survival among patients with early-stage colon cancer: a SEER-based propensity score matching analysis (2021) World J Surg Oncol 19:127 Huang ZS, Wu JW, Li Y, Lin YH, Li XY. Effect of sidedness on survival among patients with early-stage colon cancer: a SEER-based propensity score matching analysis (2021) World J Surg Oncol 19:127
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Kennecke HF, Yin Y, Davies JM, Speers CH, Cheung WY, Lee-Ying R (2018) Prognostic effect of sidedness in early stage versus advanced colon cancer. Health Sci Rep 1:e54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kennecke HF, Yin Y, Davies JM, Speers CH, Cheung WY, Lee-Ying R (2018) Prognostic effect of sidedness in early stage versus advanced colon cancer. Health Sci Rep 1:e54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Hodges N, Mackenzie H, D’Souza N, Brown G (2022) Miskovic D (2022) Survival outcomes for right-versus left-sided colon cancer and rectal cancer in England: a propensity-score matched population-based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 48:841–849CrossRefPubMed Hodges N, Mackenzie H, D’Souza N, Brown G (2022) Miskovic D (2022) Survival outcomes for right-versus left-sided colon cancer and rectal cancer in England: a propensity-score matched population-based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 48:841–849CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrelli F, Tomasello G, Borgonovo K, Ghidini M, Turati L, Dallera P, Passalacqua R, Sgroi G (2017) Barni S (2017) Prognostic survival associated with left-sided vs right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 3:211–219CrossRefPubMed Petrelli F, Tomasello G, Borgonovo K, Ghidini M, Turati L, Dallera P, Passalacqua R, Sgroi G (2017) Barni S (2017) Prognostic survival associated with left-sided vs right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 3:211–219CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Stelzner S, Radulova-Mauersberger O, Zschuppe E, Kittner T, Abolmaali N, Puffer E, Zimmer J, Witzigmann H (2019) Prognosis in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer metastases after complete resection of the primary tumor and the metastases. J Surg Oncol 120:438–445CrossRefPubMed Stelzner S, Radulova-Mauersberger O, Zschuppe E, Kittner T, Abolmaali N, Puffer E, Zimmer J, Witzigmann H (2019) Prognosis in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer metastases after complete resection of the primary tumor and the metastases. J Surg Oncol 120:438–445CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Merkel S, Schellerer VS, Wein A, Semrau S, Geppert C, Göhl J, Hohenberger W, Weber K, Grützmann R (2018) The influence of tumour site on prognosis in metastatic colorectal carcinomas with primary tumour resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 33:1215–1223CrossRefPubMed Merkel S, Schellerer VS, Wein A, Semrau S, Geppert C, Göhl J, Hohenberger W, Weber K, Grützmann R (2018) The influence of tumour site on prognosis in metastatic colorectal carcinomas with primary tumour resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 33:1215–1223CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Aggarwal H, Sheffield KM, Li L, Lenis D, Sorg R, Barzi A, Miksad R (2020) Primary tumor location and survival in colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study. World J Gastrointest Oncol 12:405–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Aggarwal H, Sheffield KM, Li L, Lenis D, Sorg R, Barzi A, Miksad R (2020) Primary tumor location and survival in colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study. World J Gastrointest Oncol 12:405–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Armstrong SA, Malley R, Weinberg BA (2020) Molecular profiling in metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 34:352–355PubMed Armstrong SA, Malley R, Weinberg BA (2020) Molecular profiling in metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 34:352–355PubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Huemer F, Thaler J, Piringer G, Hackl H, Pleyer L, Hufnagl C, Weiss L, Greil R (2018) Sidedness and TP53 mutations impact OS in anti-EGFR but not anti-VEGF treated mCRC - an analysis of the KRAS registry of the AGMT (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medikamentöse Tumortherapie). BMC Cancer 18:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Huemer F, Thaler J, Piringer G, Hackl H, Pleyer L, Hufnagl C, Weiss L, Greil R (2018) Sidedness and TP53 mutations impact OS in anti-EGFR but not anti-VEGF treated mCRC - an analysis of the KRAS registry of the AGMT (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medikamentöse Tumortherapie). BMC Cancer 18:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Zurück zum Zitat De Renzi G, Gaballo G, Gazzaniga P, Nicolazzo C (2021) Molecular biomarkers according to primary tumor location in colorectal cancer: Current standard and new insights. Oncology 99:135–143CrossRefPubMed De Renzi G, Gaballo G, Gazzaniga P, Nicolazzo C (2021) Molecular biomarkers according to primary tumor location in colorectal cancer: Current standard and new insights. Oncology 99:135–143CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Tejpar S, Stintzing S, Ciardiello F, Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Beier F, Esser R, Lenz HJ, Heinemann V (2017) 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 3:194–201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tejpar S, Stintzing S, Ciardiello F, Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Beier F, Esser R, Lenz HJ, Heinemann V (2017) 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 3:194–201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Dienstmann R, Vermeulen L, Guinney J, Kopetz S, Tejpar S, Tabernero J (2017) Consensus molecular subtypes and the evolution of precision medicine in colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 17:79–92CrossRefPubMed Dienstmann R, Vermeulen L, Guinney J, Kopetz S, Tejpar S, Tabernero J (2017) Consensus molecular subtypes and the evolution of precision medicine in colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 17:79–92CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Malki A, ElRuz RA, Gupta I, Allouch A, Vranic S, Al Moustafa AE (2020) Molecular mechanisms of colon cancer progression and metastasis: Recent insights and advancements. Int J Mol Sci 22:130CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Malki A, ElRuz RA, Gupta I, Allouch A, Vranic S, Al Moustafa AE (2020) Molecular mechanisms of colon cancer progression and metastasis: Recent insights and advancements. Int J Mol Sci 22:130CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Loree JM, Pereira AAL, Lam M, Willauer AN, Raghav K, Dasari A, Morris VK, Advani S, Menter DG, Eng C, Shaw K, Broaddus R, Routbort MJ, Liu Y, Morris JS, Luthra R, Meric-Bernstam F, Overman MJ, Maru D, Kopetz S (2018) Classifying colorectal cancer by tumor location rather than sidedness highlights a continuum in mutation profiles and Consensus Molecular Subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 24:1062–1072CrossRefPubMed Loree JM, Pereira AAL, Lam M, Willauer AN, Raghav K, Dasari A, Morris VK, Advani S, Menter DG, Eng C, Shaw K, Broaddus R, Routbort MJ, Liu Y, Morris JS, Luthra R, Meric-Bernstam F, Overman MJ, Maru D, Kopetz S (2018) Classifying colorectal cancer by tumor location rather than sidedness highlights a continuum in mutation profiles and Consensus Molecular Subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 24:1062–1072CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Ascierto PA, Marincola FM, Fox BA, Galon J (2020) No time to die: the Consensus Immunoscore for predicting survival and response to chemotherapy of locally advanced colon cancer patients in a multicenter international study. Oncoimmunology 9:1826132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ascierto PA, Marincola FM, Fox BA, Galon J (2020) No time to die: the Consensus Immunoscore for predicting survival and response to chemotherapy of locally advanced colon cancer patients in a multicenter international study. Oncoimmunology 9:1826132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Mlecnik B, Bifulco C, Bindea G et al (2020) Multicenter International Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Study of the Consensus Immunoscore for the prediction of survival and response to chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 38:3638–3651CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mlecnik B, Bifulco C, Bindea G et al (2020) Multicenter International Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Study of the Consensus Immunoscore for the prediction of survival and response to chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 38:3638–3651CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Merkel S, Brunner M, Geppert CI, Grützmann R, Weber K, Agaimy A (2022) proposal of a T3 subclassification for colon carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 14:6186CrossRefPubMed Merkel S, Brunner M, Geppert CI, Grützmann R, Weber K, Agaimy A (2022) proposal of a T3 subclassification for colon carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 14:6186CrossRefPubMed
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahbari NN, Lordick F, Fink C, Bork U, Stange A, Jäger D, Luntz SP, Englert S, Rossion I, Koch M, Büchler MW, Kieser M, Weitz J, SYNCHRONOUS trial group, (2012) Resection of the primary tumour versus no resection prior to systemic therapy in patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases (UICC stage IV): SYNCHRONOUS – a randomised controlled multicentre trial (ISRCTN30964555). BMC Cancer 12:142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rahbari NN, Lordick F, Fink C, Bork U, Stange A, Jäger D, Luntz SP, Englert S, Rossion I, Koch M, Büchler MW, Kieser M, Weitz J, SYNCHRONOUS trial group, (2012) Resection of the primary tumour versus no resection prior to systemic therapy in patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases (UICC stage IV): SYNCHRONOUS – a randomised controlled multicentre trial (ISRCTN30964555). BMC Cancer 12:142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Sidedness is not a prognostic factor in an unselected cohort of patients with colon cancer but prognosis for caecal carcinoma is worse – A multivariate analysis of a large single institution database
verfasst von
Sigmar Stelzner
Matthias Mehdorn
Erik Puffer
Dorothea Bleyl
Thomas Kittner
Philipp Rhode
Ines Gockel
Soeren T. Mees
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2024
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-023-04590-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

International Journal of Colorectal Disease 1/2024 Zur Ausgabe

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

08.05.2024 Postoperative Wundinfektion Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Wundprotektoren bei offenen Eingriffen am unteren Gastrointestinaltrakt schützt vor Infektionen im Op.-Gebiet – und dient darüber hinaus der besseren Sicht. Das bestätigt mit großer Robustheit eine randomisierte Studie im Fachblatt JAMA Surgery.

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

07.05.2024 Suizid Nachrichten

Der belastende Arbeitsalltag wirkt sich negativ auf die psychische Gesundheit der Angehörigen ärztlicher Berufsgruppen aus. Chirurginnen und Chirurgen bilden da keine Ausnahme, im Gegenteil.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.