Evidence Hub

Analysis of Risk Factors, Treatment Patterns, and Survival Outcomes After Emergency Presentation With Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study in Nigeria

Aderibigbe AS, Dare AJ, Kalvin HL, Olasehinde O, Wuraola F, Adisa A, Omisore AD, Komolafe AO et al.

Journal of surgical oncology, 2025

535 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background and objectives: Prospective data on presentation and outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Nigeria are limited; however, emergency presentation with advanced disease is thought common.

Methods: Consecutive CRC patients presenting at six sites over 6 years were included. Risk factors for emergency presentation were evaluated using logistic regression methods. Overall survival (OS) was compared between emergent and elective patients using Kaplan-Meier methods and the log-rank test.

Results: Of 535 patients, 30.7% presented emergently. Median age was 56 years, 55% were men, and 5.0% reported a cancer family history. Emergency patients had more proximal cancers (42.1% vs. 24.0%), Stage IV disease (61.6% vs. 40.2%; p < 0.001), lower household income (₦35 000/month vs. ₦50 000/month), lower education levels (p = 0.008) and accessed care with nonmotorized transport (50.6% vs. 37.2%; p = 0.005). Median OS was shorter in the emergency group (6.4 vs. 17.4 months; p < 0.001). Across clinical stages, emergency presentation was associated with worse OS (Stage IV median OS 4.8 vs. 9.4 months; p = 0.002). Surgery improved survival in both groups, although emergency patients had higher 30-day postoperative mortality (23.2% vs. 9.1%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Emergent Nigerian CRC patients have worse OS than elective patients. Cancer control efforts should focus on faster cancer detection, early presentation, diagnosis, and treatment.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 535 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free